\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Morgan WEBB; Briana Webb, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. TOWN OF SAINT JOSEPH ; Edward L. Brown, Defendants - Appellees\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-24\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nCase: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n FILED\\n No. 17-30267 May 24, 2019\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\nMORGAN WEBB; BRIANA WEBB, Clerk\\n\\n\\n Plaintiffs - Appellants\\n\\nv.\\n\\nTOWN OF SAINT JOSEPH; EDWARD L. BROWN,\\n\\n Defendants - Appellees\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Louisiana\\n\\n\\nBefore HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.\\nPATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:\\n Ivan Webb sued the Town of St. Joseph and its Mayor, arguing that they\\nviolated his federal and state constitutional rights by seeking—and then\\nseeking to collect on—a judgment that he owed over $50,000 for violating a\\nlocal ordinance. The district court concluded that the criteria for municipal\\nliability were not met and that the Mayor was at least entitled to qualified\\nimmunity. We affirm summary judgment on the federal § 1983 claims, and\\nvacate and remand the state-law claim.\\n I\\n This case has a convoluted procedural history spanning both state and\\nfederal court. It began straightforwardly, however: in November 2006, Ivan\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\nWebb petitioned the St. Joseph Board of Aldermen for a permit to place a\\nmobile home on his father’s property. 1 He also requested the right to place\\nadditional mobile homes on the property in the future. 2 Although the Board\\nonly granted him a permit to place one mobile home on the property, Webb\\nplaced a second home without a permit. 3 St. Joseph issued Webb a ticket for\\nviolating a local ordinance providing that “[n]o building or other structure shall\\nbe built or constructed in the Town of St. Joseph without there first being\\nobtained a permit from the Mayor and Board authorizing or approving the\\nconstruction of such building or other structure.” 4 Webb then applied for and\\nwas denied a second permit. 5\\n An assortment of court proceedings followed. The permit violation was\\nfirst tried before the Mayor’s Court, which found that Webb had violated the\\nordinance by placing a second mobile home on the property. 6 It ordered Webb\\nto pay a fine of $100 per day beginning February 14, 2007, until he removed\\nthe second trailer from the lot. 7 Webb appealed to state district court, which\\nheld a de novo trial and also sided with St. Joseph. 8 The district court entered\\na $58,200 judgment for St. Joseph—“representing the fine of $100 per day for\\neach of the 582 days from February 14, 2007 through the date of trial,\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 See Webb v. Town of St. Joseph (Webb I), 560 F. App’x 362, 363 (5th Cir. 2014)\\n(per curiam).\\n 2 Id.\\n 3 Id.\\n 4 Id. Although the ticket was initially issued on February 7, 2007, the Chief of\\n\\nPolice remedied the error by certified letter on February 14, 2017. See Town of St.\\nJoseph v. Webb, 87 So. 3d 958, 960 (La. Ct. App. 2012).\\n 5 See Town of St. Joseph, 87 So. 3d at 960.\\n 6 See Webb I, 560 F. App’x at 363–64. The Mayor did not preside due to a conflict\\n\\nof interest. Instead, the Louisiana Supreme Court appointed a state trial court judge\\nto preside. See Town of St. Joseph, 87 So. 3d at 960.\\n 7 See Webb I, 560 F. App’x at 363–64.\\n 8 See id. at 364.\\n\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\nSeptember 18, 2008.” Webb’s appeal of this decision was dismissed due to his\\nfailure to pay court fees. 9\\n At this point, St. Joseph officials attempted to collect on the $58,200\\njudgment. The Town Attorney, Karl Koch, filed a motion in the state district\\ncourt for execution by writ of fieri facias, which allowed St. Joseph to seize and\\nattempt to sell two lots belonging to Webb. 10 One of the lots was sold at a\\nsheriff’s sale, while the other was not ultimately sold. St. Joseph’s mayor,\\nEdward L. Brown, also sent Webb a letter notifying him that his alderman’s\\nwages—$500 a month—would be entirely withheld as a setoff on the money he\\nowed the town.\\n Webb moved to annul the judgment, arguing that the matter had\\nexceeded the Mayor’s Court’s jurisdictional limits and that the ordinance did\\nnot apply to mobile homes. 11 The district court denied the motion. 12 Webb\\nsuspensively appealed to the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal, which\\nruled in his favor in March 2012 and annulled the district court’s judgment. 13\\nIt held that although the Louisiana Constitution required Webb to be given\\nreasonable notice of the charge against him, the ticket issued to Webb and the\\ncomplaint filed against him in the Mayor’s Court accused him only of violating\\na single offense. 14 The Second Circuit Court of Appeal therefore held that “the\\nimposition of a fine of $58,200 for violations of the ordinance for 582 days\\nconstituted an illegal sentence,” concluded that it could correct an illegal\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 9 See id.\\n 10 See id.\\n 11 See Town of St. Joseph, 87 So. 3d at 961.\\n 12 See id.\\n 13 See id. at 963.\\n 14 See id. at 962–63.\\n\\n 3\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\ncriminal sentence at any time, and reduced the fine to $100 for a single\\nviolation of the ordinance. 15\\n St. Joseph still withheld Webb’s alderman’s wages after the Second\\nCircuit Court of Appeal annulled the judgment, while it sought a writ of review\\nfrom the Louisiana Supreme Court. The decision became final once the\\nLouisiana Supreme Court denied the application for review in June 2012. 16 For\\nthree months, St. Joseph continued to withhold wages and did not immediately\\noffer Webb backpay for the wages that had already been withheld. The Webbs\\nallege that Mayor Brown made an intentional decision to continue withholding\\nhis wages and backpay even after the judgment was annulled, while the\\ndefendants contend that this was the result of an “oversight.”\\n As for Webb’s properties, one of the lots was never sold and St. Joseph\\nnotified him that the writ of fieri facias on that lot had expired. The other lot\\nhad already been sold at a sheriff’s sale, and St. Joseph reimbursed Webb $792\\nfor the amount that the Town received from the sale. Webb suggests that he is\\nowed more from the sale and is owed rental income that he could have made\\nfrom both properties. The defendants counter that Webb’s attorney in fact\\nargued against voiding the original sale after a lawyer for the Sheriff had\\nidentified a potential legal problem, since the property was sold to Webb’s\\nbrother.\\n In October 2012, Webb sued St. Joseph and Mayor Brown in federal\\ncourt, seeking damages for violations of his federal and state constitutional\\nrights. After Webb filed his federal suit, St. Joseph offered him $10,486.54 in\\nbackpay for the withheld wages in October 2012. Webb interpreted this as\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 15 See id. at 963.\\n 16 See Town of St. Joseph v. Webb, 91 So. 3d 976 (La. 2012) (mem.).\\n 4\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\ncontingent on his settling the case and did not initially accept the money. By\\nFebruary 2013, however, Webb accepted the return of his wages.\\n The district court initially granted St. Joseph’s motion to dismiss Webb’s\\ncomplaint as barred by res judicata, reasoning that Webb could have brought\\nthe same claims or causes of action in his state court suit to annul the original\\njudgment. 17 We reversed, holding that when properly resolving any doubts\\nagainst applying res judicata in favor of Webb, there was insufficient evidence\\nthat Webb could have brought the same claims or causes of actions in his state\\nlawsuit. 18 For example, Webb had alleged “violations of his rights based on\\nconduct that necessarily occurred after the [state] appellate decision,” such as\\n“that the Town continued to enforce the illegal sentence, retained the proceeds\\nthat resulted from the sale of one of Webb’s properties seized by the Town\\npursuant to the writ of fieri facias, and withheld Webb’s salary until October\\n2012.” 19\\n Webb passed away in 2015 and his heirs, Morgan and Briana Webb, were\\nsubstituted as plaintiffs. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district\\ncourt granted summary judgment to St. Joseph and to the Mayor in his\\nindividual capacity. It also denied the Webbs’ motion to disqualify the Town\\nAttorney from representing the defendants. The Webbs appeal.\\n II\\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. 20\\n“Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the movant shows that there is no\\ngenuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment\\n\\n\\n\\n 17 See Webb v. Town of St. Joseph, No. 12-02644, 2013 WL 2617090 (W.D. La.\\nJune 11, 2013).\\n 18 See Webb I, 560 F. App’x at 366–67.\\n 19 Id. at 367.\\n 20 See Alvarez v. City of Brownsville, 904 F.3d 382, 389 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc).\\n\\n 5\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\nas a matter of law.’” 21 “We resolve factual controversies in favor of the\\nnonmoving party, but only when there is an actual controversy, that is, when\\nboth parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” 22\\n A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has two foundational elements: “a\\nviolation of the Constitution or of federal law, and . . . that the violation was\\ncommitted by someone acting under color of state law.” 23 The Webbs’ § 1983\\nclaim against St. Joseph must meet the requirements for municipal liability\\nestablished by Monell v. Department of Social Services 24 and its progeny. As\\ntheir § 1983 claim against Mayor Brown in his individual capacity is subject to\\nhis qualified immunity defense, they must show that his actions “were\\nobjectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the\\nviolation.” 25\\n III\\n We turn first to the Webbs’ claim against St. Joseph. While\\nmunicipalities can be sued directly under § 1983, Monell establishes that they\\n“cannot be found liable on a theory of vicarious liability or respondeat\\nsuperior.” 26 In other words, “the unconstitutional conduct must be directly\\nattributable to the municipality through some sort of official action or\\nimprimatur; isolated unconstitutional actions by municipal employees will\\nalmost never trigger liability.” 27 To overcome summary judgment on a\\n\\n\\n\\n 21 Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(a)).\\n 22 Id. (quoting State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Flowers, 854 F.3d 842, 844 (5th\\nCir. 2017)).\\n 23 Rich v. Palko, 920 F.3d 288, 293–94 (5th Cir. 2019).\\n 24 436 U.S. 658 (1978).\\n 25 Sims v. City of Madisonville, 894 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam).\\n 26 Davidson v. City of Stafford, 848 F.3d 384, 395 (5th Cir. 2017), as revised\\n\\n(Mar. 31, 2017) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690–91).\\n 27 Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir. 2001); accord\\n\\nFennell v. Marion Indep. Sch. Dist., 804 F.3d 398, 412 (5th Cir. 2015).\\n 6\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\nmunicipal liability claim, a plaintiff must therefore “demonstrate a dispute of\\nfact as to three elements: that (1) an official policy (2) promulgated by the\\nmunicipal policymaker (3) was the moving force behind the violation of a\\nconstitutional right.” 28\\n A\\n Our caselaw establishes three ways of establishing a municipal policy for\\nthe purposes of Monell liability. First, a plaintiff can show “written policy\\nstatements, ordinances, or regulations.” 29 Second, a plaintiff can show “a\\nwidespread practice that is so common and well-settled as to constitute a\\ncustom that fairly represents municipal policy.” 30 Third, even a single decision\\nmay constitute municipal policy in “rare circumstances” when the official or\\nentity possessing “final policymaking authority” for an action “performs the\\nspecific act that forms the basis of the § 1983 claim.” 31\\n The Webbs do not allege any written municipal policy or widespread\\npractice. Instead, their argument centers on whether an official with “final\\npolicymaking authority” took the actions underpinning their § 1983 claim—\\nnamely, the initial effort to obtain a judgment penalizing Webb for 582 days of\\nviolations rather than a single day, coupled with the related effort to collect on\\nthat judgment by withholding Webb’s alderman’s wages and seizing his\\nproperty. We therefore will focus our inquiry on this issue.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 28 Davidson, 848 F.3d at 395.\\n 29 Alvarez, 904 F.3d at 389–90.\\n 30 Id. at 390.\\n 31 Davidson, 848 F.3d at 395 (citing, e.g., Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475\\n\\nU.S. 469, 480, 482, 484–85 (1986)); see also Anderson v. City of McComb, 539 F. App’x\\n385, 388 n.2 (5th Cir. 2013) (“When the policymakers are the violators, no further\\nproof of municipal policy or custom is required.”).\\n 7\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\n B\\n “[A] final decisionmaker’s adoption of a course of action ‘tailored to a\\nparticular situation and not intended to control decisions in later situations’\\nmay, in some circumstances, give rise to municipal liability under § 1983.” 32\\nThis requires the “deliberate choice to follow a course of action . . . made from\\namong various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for\\nestablishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question.” 33\\nTherefore, the “critical question” is generally “to decide who is the final\\npolicymaker, which is an issue of state law.” 34\\n Our inquiry does not end where state law does not establish the relevant\\nactor as a final policymaker, however. A municipal employee may also possess\\nfinal policymaking authority where the final policymaker has delegated that\\nauthority, either expressly or impliedly. 35 Not all delegations of authority are\\ndelegations of policymaking authority—“[w]e have long recognized that the\\n‘discretion to exercise a particular function does not necessarily entail final\\npolicymaking authority over that function.’” 36\\n The Webbs argue that St. Joseph’s liability is grounded in the actions of\\ntwo officials, the Town Attorney and Mayor Brown. We address in turn\\n\\n\\n 32 Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 406 (1997) (quoting\\nPembaur, 475 U.S. at 481).\\n 33 Garza v. City of Donna, 922 F.3d 626, 638 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Pembaur,\\n\\n475 U.S. at 483–84) (first emphasis added).\\n 34 Advanced Tech. Bldg. Sols., L.L.C. v. City of Jackson, 817 F.3d 163, 166 (5th\\n\\nCir. 2016) (citing Jett v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist., 7 F.3d 1241, 1245 (5th Cir. 1993)).\\n 35 See Zarnow v. City of Wichita Falls, 614 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2010).\\n 36 Valle v. City of Houston, 613 F.3d 536, 542–43 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bolton\\n\\nv. City of Dallas, 541 F.3d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam)); see Zarnow, 614\\nF.3d at 167 (“There is a fine distinction between a policymaker and a\\ndecisionmaker.”); Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762, 769 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc)\\n(“Policymakers act in the place of the governing body in the area of their\\nresponsibility; they are not supervised except as to the totality of their\\nperformance.”).\\n 8\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\nwhether each is a “final policymaker” whose one-time actions could generate\\nmunicipal liability.\\n 1\\n The Town Attorney took most of the actions relevant to this case. He filed\\nthe initial charge against Webb; pursued a judgment through the Louisiana\\ncourts; and initiated proceedings to collect on the judgment, including by\\nseeking writs of fieri facias on Webb’s properties. If the Town Attorney acted\\nas a final policymaker, we would easily conclude that these actions could\\nground municipal liability. We ultimately agree with the district court, though,\\nthat the Town Attorney was not a final policymaker for St. Joseph.\\n We first look to where state law rests policymaking authority,\\nconsidering “the relevant legal materials, including state and local positive\\nlaw, as well as custom or usage having the force of law.” 37 The relevant statute\\nprovides only that the municipal attorney’s “duties in such capacity may\\ninclude representation of all municipal officers . . . in actions against them in\\nconnection with and arising out of their functions as such officers, and other\\nduties as prescribed by the mayor.” 38 This suggests that the Town Attorney\\nwas authorized to act in a representative—not policymaking—capacity, and\\nthe Webbs present no evidence that state or local custom imbued the Town\\nAttorney with general policymaking authority. In cases where an attorney has\\nbeen treated as a local government policymaker, there was substantially\\nclearer vesting of such authority or other unique circumstances not present\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 37Jett v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737 (1989) (internal quotation\\nmarks omitted).\\n 38 La. Rev. Stat. § 33:386(C).\\n\\n 9\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\nhere. 39 Indeed, the Webbs at points appear to concede that the Town Attorney\\ndoes not inherently hold policymaking authority for St. Joseph.\\n Instead, the Webbs principally argue that Mayor Brown delegated his\\nfinal policymaking authority to the Town Attorney. They cite his affidavit,\\nwhere he described how he “left the decisions regarding how to proceed with\\nthe litigation against Ivan Webb up to the Town Attorneys” and how, even\\nthough he “directed the [Town Attorney] to proceed with the collection efforts,\\nhe “left the decisions about how to conduct these legal proceedings up to the\\nTown’s attorney . . . [and] expected that the Town’s attorney would only come\\nto [him] for decisions about matters which required a decision by the client.”\\nThey also reference Louisiana law providing that a town’s mayor, as the “chief\\nexecutive officer of the municipality,” 40 may “delegate the performance of\\nadministrative duties to such municipal officers or employees as he deems\\nnecessary and advisable.” 41 In sum, they suggest that once the Mayor left\\ndecisions about how to collect the judgment against Webb up to the Town\\nAttorney, the Town Attorney became a final policymaker.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 39 See Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 484–85 (observing that Ohio law authorized a\\ncounty prosecutor not just to render legal advice, but also to instruct county officers\\n“in matters connected with their official duties”); Culbertson v. Lykos, 790 F.3d 608,\\n624 (5th Cir. 2015) (observing that a district attorney “arguably” was a final\\npolicymaker in the specific area of determining what witnesses to use in prosecutions,\\nthough not deciding the issue); Turner v. Upton County, 915 F.2d 133, 137–38 (5th\\nCir. 1990) (concluding that a county could be liable for the actions of a district\\nattorney, not because the district attorney was an authorized policymaker for the\\ncounty, but because he was a member of a conspiracy including the county sheriff—\\nwho was an authorized policymaker); cf. Bennett, 728 F.2d at 769 (concluding that a\\ncity attorney had no policymaking authority because he was “employed only to give\\nlegal advice”).\\n 40 La. Rev. Stat. § 33:362(B).\\n 41 Id. § 33:404(A)(2).\\n\\n 10\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\n This argument conflates policymaking authority with decision-making\\nauthority, something our caselaw counsels against. 42 A true policymaker must\\n“decide the goals for a particular city function and devise the means of\\nachieving those goals.” 43 We see no indication that the Town Attorney was\\ngiven final policymaking authority in this vein, beyond a grant of decision-\\nmaking authority to pursue the goal of enforcing the city ordinance and\\ncollecting the judgment. Although the Town Attorney had the discretion to\\nmake certain decisions about how to pursue St. Joseph’s judgment against\\nWebb, “[i]f the mere exercise of discretion by an employee could give rise to a\\nconstitutional violation, the result would be indistinguishable from respondeat\\nsuperior.” 44 The wrongful conduct alleged by the plaintiffs on the part of the\\nTown Attorney therefore does not fall into the narrow category of action by a\\nfinal policymaker that can by itself ground municipal liability.\\n 2\\n This raises the natural question of whether the Mayor’s status as a final\\npolicymaker could ground § 1983 liability on the part of St. Joseph. 45 Even\\nwhen an official with final policymaking authority does not directly act to set\\npolicy, a municipality may be liable in “extreme factual situations” when that\\nofficial ratifies a subordinate’s decision, which requires more than the defense\\nof a decision or action shown to be unconstitutional after the fact. 46 A\\nmunicipality may also be liable when a policymaker engages in deliberately\\nindifferent failure to control subordinates in a way likely to result in violation\\n\\n\\n 42 See Valle, 613 F.3d at 543–44 (“Although [the relevant ordinances] confer\\ndecisionmaking or operational command authority on [the official], it does not follow\\nthat [the official] . . . acts in a policymaking capacity.”); Bolton, 541 F.3d at 548–50.\\n 43 Bennett, 728 F.2d at 769; accord Zarnow, 614 F.3d at 167.\\n 44 City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 126 (1988) (plurality opinion).\\n 45 The parties appear to agree that Mayor Brown qualifies as a final\\n\\npolicymaker for the purposes of municipal liability.\\n 46 See Davidson, 848 F.3d at 395–96.\\n\\n 11\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\nof constitutional rights. 47 The Webbs do not argue, however, that Mayor Brown\\nwas deliberately indifferent in failing to control the Town Attorney—nor do\\nthey argue that Mayor Brown subsequently ratified the Town Attorney’s\\nactions. 48 We have held that such arguments can be waived. 49 On the record\\nand arguments before us, we cannot conclude that the plaintiffs have\\nestablished a genuine fact issue over whether St. Joseph can be held liable for\\nits mayor’s indirect actions in failing to supervise, or subsequently ratifying,\\nits Town Attorney’s conduct.\\n The question therefore becomes whether Mayor Brown, acting as a final\\npolicymaker, himself made decisions that threatened Webb’s constitutional\\nrights. The Webbs argue that the Mayor took three categories of actions that\\ncan ground municipal liability: first, he was generally involved as a\\n\\n\\n 47 See Alvarez, 904 F.3d at 390 (“To base deliberate indifference on a single\\nincident, ‘it should have been apparent to the policymaker that a constitutional\\nviolation was the highly predictable consequence of a particular policy.’” (quoting\\nBurge v. St. Tammany Par., 336 F.3d 363, 373 (5th Cir. 2003)).\\n 48 The Webbs fleetingly argue that St. Joseph is liable because Mayor Brown\\n\\n“approv[ed] the acts of the Town Attorney,” but present no further argument on this\\npoint. This is not enough to demonstrate the sort of “extreme factual situation” where\\nratification applies. See, e.g., Culbertson, 790 F.3d at 621 (“If a final policymaker\\napproves a subordinate’s recommendation and also the subordinate’s reasoning, that\\napproval is considered a ratification chargeable to the municipality. This theory of\\nratification has been limited to ‘extreme factual situations.’” (emphasis added and\\ncitations omitted)); Okon v. Harris Cty. Hosp. Dist., 426 F. App’x 312, 317 n.10 (5th\\nCir. 2011) (per curiam) (“Only if the authorized policymakers approve a subordinate’s\\ndecision and the basis for it would their ratification be chargeable to the\\nmunicipality.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Peterson v. City of Fort Worth,\\n588 F.3d 838, 848 (5th Cir. 2009) (finding no ratification where a policymaker\\n“determined after investigation that [the challenged conduct] complied with the\\ndepartment’s policies”); World Wide St. Preachers Fellowship v. Town of Columbia,\\n591 F.3d 747, 755 (5th Cir. 2009) (suggesting that ratification might occur if the\\nsupervisor explicitly ratified or defended a subordinate’s actions and “the\\nsubordinate’s actions are sufficiently extreme—for instance, an obvious violation of\\nclearly established law”).\\n 49 See Valle, 613 F.3d at 544 & n.5 (holding that litigants waived their\\n\\nratification argument by failing to raise it in their opening brief).\\n 12\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\npolicymaker throughout the decision-making process; second, he personally\\ninitiated the withholding of Webb’s alderman’s wages; and third, he was\\nresponsible for the failure to stop withholding Webb’s wages and to return the\\nwages already withheld until three months after the annulment of the\\njudgment became final. 50\\n We have no difficulty concluding that the Webbs failed to present\\nsufficient summary judgment evidence that Mayor Brown was involved\\nthroughout the decision-making process in a way that would generate\\nmunicipal liability, especially in light of the simultaneous suggestion that the\\nTown Attorney had been delegated decision-making authority. 51 But the\\nWebbs also argue that Mayor Brown took affirmative actions to impede Webb’s\\nconstitutional rights, which poses a closer issue. They have presented\\nsufficient evidence to support their allegation that Mayor Brown was\\npersonally involved in the initial decision to collect on the judgment, including\\nby withholding Webb’s alderman’s wages—he conceded as much in his\\naffidavit, and the letter informing Webb of the withholding came from and was\\nsigned by the Mayor. It is less clear, though, whether the Mayor made any\\naffirmative decision to continue withholding Webb’s wages—and not to return\\nwages already withheld—until three months after the annulment became\\nfinal. There is a paucity of evidence on both sides on this issue: Mayor Brown\\nasserts only that this was the result of an “oversight” by his office, while the\\nWebbs present no evidence to the contrary beyond arguing that a jury could\\n\\n\\n 50 There is no concrete suggestion that Mayor Brown was personally involved\\nin the seizure of Webb’s properties or subsequent attempts to sell them. Nor is there\\nany indication that the Mayor made decisions regarding the language of the charging\\ninstrument or the nature of the judgment sought.\\n 51 See, e.g., Davidson, 848 F.3d at 395 (observing that although a single action\\n\\nby a policymaker can establish municipal liability, this only occurs in “rare\\ncircumstances” where “a policymaker performs the specific act the forms the basis of\\nthe § 1983 claim” (emphasis added).\\n 13\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\ninfer from a history of bad blood between Webb and the Mayor that the decision\\nwas no oversight. We ultimately conclude that the Webbs have not shown a\\nfact issue over whether the continued withholding of Webb’s wages was the\\nresult of a “deliberate choice to follow a course of action . . . made from among\\nvarious alternatives by [the Mayor].” 52\\n In sum, the Webbs argue that this falls into the narrow range of cases\\nwhere municipal liability can stem from individual, one-off decisions by an\\nauthorized policymaker. They have not shown that the Town Attorney was a\\nfinal policymaker for these purposes, and therefore have not shown that St.\\nJoseph should be liable as a municipality for his discretionary decisions. It is\\npossible that affirmative decisions made by the Mayor, rather than the Town\\nAttorney, could have generated municipal liability. The only affirmative\\ndecision by Mayor Brown that the Webbs have adequately substantiated,\\nhowever, was his initial decision to take efforts to collect on the—at that time,\\nfinal—judgment. With our focus substantially narrowed, we therefore turn to\\nwhether this decision was the “moving force” behind a violation of a\\nconstitutional right.\\n C\\n After establishing a sufficiently official municipal policy promulgated by\\nan authorized policymaker, a plaintiff must then show that the policy was the\\n“moving force” behind the constitutional violation. 53 This requires showing\\neither that the policy itself was unconstitutional 54 or that it was adopted with\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 52 E.g., Garza, 922 F.3d at 638.\\n 53 See Alvarez, 904 F.3d at 390.\\n 54 See Bryan Cty., 520 U.S. at 404 (“Where a plaintiff claims that a particular\\n\\nmunicipal action itself violates federal law, or directs an employee to do so, resolving\\nthese issues of fault and causation is straightforward.”).\\n 14\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\ndeliberate indifference to the “known or obvious fact that such constitutional\\nviolations would result.” 55\\n As we have explained, the only potential municipal policy that could\\nground the Webbs’ claim against St. Joseph arises from Mayor Brown’s alleged\\ndecision, as a final policymaker, to initially begin undertaking efforts to collect\\non the judgment. The Webbs offer two arguments as to why this specific\\ndecision was unconstitutional.\\n First, the Webbs argue that it was impermissible for St. Joseph to\\nwithhold Webb’s wages without formal garnishment procedures. The\\ndefendants aver that the withholding was authorized by Louisiana Civil Code\\narticle 1893, which allows for “compensation” by operation of law “when two\\npersons owe to each other sums of money or quantities of fungible things\\nidentical in kind, and these sums or quantities are liquidated and presently\\ndue,” such that “both obligations [are extinguished] to the lesser amount.” 56\\nThey argue that they were not required to institute formal garnishment\\nprocedures as a result. In response, the Webbs argue that this was\\ninappropriate “self-help” to which St. Joseph was not entitled to resort in lieu\\nof a formal statutory garnishment proceeding. They also observe that if St.\\nJoseph had pursued garnishment, it would only have been able to seize 25% of\\nWebb’s alderman’s wages, not the entirety of the wages. The Webbs point to no\\nauthority, though, that allows us to conclude that it violates federal\\nconstitutional law for a municipality to pursue one statutorily authorized\\nmechanism to collect on a final judgment over another. In fact, they appear to\\n\\n\\n\\n 55 Shumpert v. City of Tupelo, 905 F.3d 310, 316–17 (5th Cir. 2018), as revised\\n(Sept. 25, 2018).\\n 56 La. Civ. Code art. 1893; see also, e.g., Richard v. Vidrine Auto. Servs., Inc.,\\n\\n729 So. 2d 1174, 1177–78 (La. Ct. App. 1999) (describing how an employer’s claim for\\ncompensation can authorize setoffs against wages in certain circumstances).\\n 15\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\nconcede that state-law limitations on garnishment do not generate a federal\\nclaim that could support § 1983 liability.\\n More broadly, the Webbs contend that the judgment was\\nunconstitutional and that St. Joseph was therefore not authorized to take\\nefforts to collect on it. They submit no caselaw, and we are not aware of any,\\nestablishing that a municipality violates constitutional rights when it\\nundertakes efforts to collect on a final court judgment—albeit one later\\ndetermined to be unconstitutional—by withholding wages in a manner\\nauthorized by law. 57 St. Joseph and its policymakers were initially entitled to\\nrely on the judgment, rendered final by Webb’s failure to perfect his appeal,\\nand to undertake steps to collect on that judgment.\\n ***\\n A common thread running throughout the Supreme Court’s and our own\\ncaselaw on municipal liability is that such liability “is limited to action for\\nwhich the municipality is actually responsible.” 58 The Webbs have painted a\\npicture of poor decisions and bureaucratic dysfunction—but they have not\\nestablished that St. Joseph policy was the moving force behind the violation of\\nany constitutional right. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of\\nsummary judgment to St. Joseph on the Webbs’ § 1983 claim.\\n IV\\n The same analysis demonstrates why Mayor Brown is entitled to\\nsummary judgment on the claim against him in his individual capacity. As we\\n\\n\\n 57 At oral argument and in their briefing, the Webbs attempt to analogize this\\ncase to our decision in Ballard v. Wall, where we held that private attorneys could be\\nliable under § 1983 as state actors when they allegedly conspired with a judge to\\nessentially operate a “debtor’s prison” to extract money from judgment debtors. 413\\nF.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2005). We do not extract from Ballard a principle that any effort\\nto collect on a final judgment ultimately determined to be unlawful is\\nunconstitutional.\\n 58 Burge, 187 F.3d at 471 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 479).\\n\\n 16\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\nhave explained, the summary judgment record does not support the Webbs’\\nfar-reaching allegations that the Mayor was personally involved throughout\\nthe challenged conduct. It also does not support their allegation that the Mayor\\ndeliberately withheld Webb’s wages even after the judgment was finally\\nannulled. They cite no evidence, for example, that Webb asked for his wages to\\nbe reinstated and was denied. 59 At most, the summary judgment evidence\\nallows that the Mayor made the initial decision to pursue collection on the\\n$58,200 final judgment. As in their arguments for municipal liability, however,\\nthe Webbs offer no way for us to conclude that this specific action by the Mayor\\nviolated Webb’s constitutional rights—let alone that such action was\\nunreasonable given clearly established law. 60 We will therefore also affirm the\\ndistrict court’s grant of summary judgment to Mayor Brown on the § 1983\\nclaim against him in his individual capacity.\\n Again, our decision is shaped by the arguments and evidence the Webbs\\nhave presented. They do not allege that Mayor Brown is individually liable due\\nto failure to supervise the Town Attorney or subsequent adoption of the Town\\nAttorney’s actions. And, while they do allege that Mayor Brown made the\\naffirmative decision to continue withholding Webb’s wages after the\\nannulment became final, they do not present evidence sufficient to support this\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 59 While Webb sent Mayor Brown a letter in May 2011 demanding the return\\nof his alderman’s wages, this was before the Second Circuit Court of Appeal annulled\\nthe judgment.\\n 60 Mayor Brown raises the defense of qualified immunity, which requires the\\n\\nWebbs to show “(1) that [he] violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that\\nthe right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” E.g., Cutler\\nv. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 767 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation\\nmarks omitted). Because we conclude that the Webbs have not adequately\\nsubstantiated any concrete conduct on Mayor Brown’s part that violated Webb’s\\nconstitutional rights, we need not address the “clearly established” prong of qualified\\nimmunity.\\n 17\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\nconclusion. Perhaps on a different record, the Mayor would not be entitled to\\nsummary judgment on his individual liability. Not here.\\n V\\n We must turn to two final housekeeping matters. First, the Webbs also\\nargue that the district court erred in denying the motion to disqualify the Town\\nAttorney from acting both as counsel and as a potential witness. We review\\nthis for abuse of discretion, assessing fact-finding for clear error and\\nperforming a “‘careful examination,’ or de novo review, of the district court’s\\napplication of the relevant rules of attorney conduct.” 61 In evaluating a motion\\nto disqualify, “[a] court must take into account not only the various ethical\\nprecepts adopted by the profession but also the social interests at stake.” 62\\n Acknowledging that the relevant rules establish that a lawyer shall not\\nact as advocate where the lawyer is also likely to be a necessary witness, 63 the\\ndistrict court concluded that the Town Attorney’s testimony was unnecessary.\\nIt explained that details about the Town Attorney’s motivations and reasoning\\nwere irrelevant to the fundamental question—whether the complained-of\\nconduct emerged from a municipal policy established by an authorized\\npolicymaker. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to\\ndisqualify.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 61 F.D.I.C. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 1304, 1311–12 (5th Cir. 1995).\\n 62 Id. at 1314 (“Among the factors that we have considered in the past are\\nwhether a conflict has (1) the appearance of impropriety in general, or (2) a possibility\\nthat a specific impropriety will occur, and (3) the likelihood of public suspicion from\\nthe impropriety outweighs any social interests which will be served by the lawyer’s\\ncontinued participation in the case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).\\n 63 See ABA Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct 3.7(a); ABA Model Code of Prof’l\\n\\nResponsibility DR 5–101(B), 5–102(A). The relevant portion of the Model Rules of\\nProfessional Conduct is identical to Louisiana’s rule concerning the propriety of\\ncounsel acting as a witness.\\n 18\\n\\f Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-30267\\n Second, the district court summarily dismissed Webb’s state-law claim\\nfor violation of his right to be free of excessive fines under Article I, Section 20\\nof the Louisiana Constitution. Although the district court suggested that its\\nanalysis applied with “equal force” to the state-law claim, its discussion was\\notherwise specific to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The decision did not address the merits\\nof the Webbs’ federal or state constitutional claims, instead resolving the\\nindividual-capacity claim on qualified immunity and the municipal-liability\\nclaim on the absence of culpable action by a final policymaker. These\\nconclusions do not provide a sufficient basis for rejecting the state\\nconstitutional claim.\\n This said, the district court has discretion to decline to exercise\\nsupplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, especially where the sole\\nfederal claims have been eliminated prior to trial. 64 We therefore vacate the\\nsummary judgment on the Webbs’ state-constitution claim and remand for the\\ndistrict court to determine whether it is appropriate to continue to exercise\\nfederal jurisdiction over the state-law claim, and, if so, to address that claim\\nmore fully.\\n VI\\n We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to both\\ndefendants on the Webbs’ § 1983 claims. We vacate the grant of summary\\njudgment on the Webbs’ state constitutional claim, however, and remand for\\nthe district court to assess its jurisdiction over this claim.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 64 See, e.g., Mendoza v. Murphy, 532 F.3d 342, 345–47 (5th Cir. 2008).\\n 19\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2062,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4623358,"string":"4,623,358"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Ralph S. JANVEY, in His Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford International Bank Limited Et Al, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GMAG, L.L.C. ; Magness Securities, L.L.C.; Gary D. Magness ; Mango Five Family Incorporated, in Its Capacity as Trustee for the Gary D. Magness Irrevocable Trust, Defendants-Appellees"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Ralph Janvey v. GMAG, L.L.C."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-24"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-11526"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Stewart, Dennis, Willett\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n FILED\\n May 24, 2019\\n No. 17-11526\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\n Clerk\\n\\nRALPH S. JANVEY, in his Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the\\nStanford International Bank Limited et al,\\n\\n Plaintiff - Appellant\\n\\nv.\\n\\nGMAG, L.L.C.; MAGNESS SECURITIES, L.L.C.; GARY D. MAGNESS;\\nMANGO FIVE FAMILY INCORPORATED, in its Capacity as Trustee for the\\nGary D. Magness Irrevocable Trust,\\n\\n Defendants - Appellees\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Texas\\n\\n\\n ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING\\nBefore STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.\\nPER CURIAM:\\n The original opinion in this case was filed on January 9, 2019. Janvey v.\\nGMAG, LLC, 913 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2019). There, we held that a transferee on\\ninquiry notice of a transfer’s fraudulent nature is not entitled to the Texas\\nUniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s (“TUFTA”) good faith affirmative defense.\\nBecause the jury determined that the Defendants-Appellees were on inquiry\\nnotice of the fraudulent nature of transfers received from a Ponzi scheme, we\\nreversed the district court’s judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nPlaintiff-Appellant. Defendants-Appellees submitted a petition for panel\\nrehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc, which are now pending before\\nthe court. In these petitions, Defendants-Appellees requested, in the\\nalternative, that we certify a question to the Supreme Court of Texas on\\ngrounds that interpreting TUFTA’s good faith defense is a significant issue of\\nfirst impression, and the panel’s interpretation differs from that of other\\njurisdictions to analyze their own Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”)\\ngood faith defenses.\\n The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED, the original opinion is\\nVACATED, and the panel substitutes the following opinion certifying a\\nquestion to the Supreme Court of Texas.\\n CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF\\nAPPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF\\nTEXAS, PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ART. 5 § 3–C AND\\nTEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 58.1.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n The SEC uncovered the Stanford International Bank (“SIB”) Ponzi\\nscheme in 2009. For close to two decades, SIB issued fraudulent certificates of\\ndeposit (“CDs”) that purported to pay fixed interest rates higher than those\\noffered by U.S. commercial banks as a result of assets invested in a well-\\ndiversified portfolio of marketable securities. In fact, the “returns” to investors\\nwere derived from new investors’ funds. The Ponzi scheme left over 18,000\\ninvestors with $7 billion in losses. The district court appointed Plaintiff-\\nAppellant Ralph S. Janvey (“the receiver”) to recover SIB’s assets and\\ndistribute them to the scheme’s victims.\\n Defendants-Appellees are Gary D. Magness and several entities in which\\nhe maintains his wealth (collectively, “Magness”). Magness was among the\\nlargest U.S. investors in SIB. Between December 2004 and October 2006,\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nMagness purchased $79 million in SIB CDs. As of November 2006, Magness’s\\nfamily trust’s investment committee monitored his investments, including the\\nSIB CDs.\\n Bloomberg reported in July 2008 that the SEC was investigating SIB. At\\nan October 2008 meeting, the investment committee persuaded Magness to\\ntake back, at minimum, his accumulated interest from SIB. The receiver\\nasserts this decision was the result of mounting skepticism about SIB.\\nMagness asserts it was because he was experiencing significant liquidity\\nproblems given the tumbling stock market.\\n Later that month, Magness’s financial advisor approached SIB for a\\nredemption. On October 9, 2008, SIB instead agreed to loan Magness $25\\nmillion on his accumulated interest. SIB applied Magness’s outstanding\\n“accrued CD interest” to repay most of this loan. In other words, Magness\\nrepaid $24.3 million of the $25 million loan with “paper interest” and $700,000\\nwith cash. Between October 24 and 28, 2008, Magness borrowed an additional\\n$63.2 million from SIB. In total, Magness received $88.2 million in cash from\\nSIB in October 2008.\\n The receiver sued Magness to recover funds under theories of (1) TUFTA\\nfraudulent transfer and (2) unjust enrichment. The receiver obtained partial\\nsummary judgment as to funds in excess of Magness’s original investment, and\\nMagness returned this $8.5 million in fraudulent transfers to the receiver.\\n The receiver moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a ruling that\\nthe remaining amounts at issue were also fraudulent transfers. Magness\\nmoved for summary judgment on his TUFTA good faith defense and the\\nreceiver’s unjust enrichment claim. The district court granted the receiver’s\\nmotion and denied Magness’s motion.\\n Just before trial, the district court sua sponte reconsidered its denial of\\nMagness’s motion for summary judgment and rejected the receiver’s unjust\\n 3\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nenrichment claim. Thus, the only issue presented to the jury was whether\\nMagness received $79 million, 1 already determined to be fraudulent transfers,\\nin good faith. After Magness’s case-in-chief, the receiver moved for judgment\\non grounds that (1) Magness was estopped from claiming he took the transfers\\nin good faith and (2) no reasonable jury could conclude that Magness\\nestablished TUFTA’s good faith defense. The district court did not rule on the\\nmotion.\\n The jury determined that Magness had inquiry notice that SIB was\\nengaged in a Ponzi scheme, but not actual knowledge. Inquiry notice was\\ndefined in the jury instructions as “knowledge of facts relating to the\\ntransaction at issue that would have excited the suspicions of a reasonable\\nperson and led that person to investigate.” The jury also determined that an\\ninvestigation would have been futile. A futile investigation was defined in the\\njury instructions as one where “a diligent inquiry would not have revealed to a\\nreasonable person that Stanford was running a Ponzi scheme.”\\n The receiver moved for entry of judgment on the verdict, arguing that\\nthe jury’s finding of inquiry notice defeated Magness’s TUFTA good faith\\ndefense as a matter of law. The receiver also renewed his motion for judgment\\nas a matter of law. The district court denied the receiver’s motions and held\\nthat Magness satisfied his good faith defense. The receiver renewed his post-\\ntrial motions and moved for a new trial. The court denied these motions and\\nissued its final judgment that the receiver take nothing aside from his prior\\nreceipt of $8.5 million.\\n On appeal, the receiver argued that (1) Magness was estopped from\\ncontesting his actual knowledge of SIB’s fraud or insolvency; (2) the jury’s\\n\\n\\n 1 Magness originally invested $79 million in SIB. He borrowed $88.2 million in cash\\nfrom SIB, but he paid $700,000 back to SIB in cash and has already ceded $8.5 million to the\\nreceiver. The $79 million “loaned” to Magness from SIB remains in dispute.\\n 4\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nfinding of inquiry notice defeated Magness’s TUFTA good faith defense as a\\nmatter of law; (3) the district court’s jury instructions were erroneous and\\nreduced Magness’s burden to establish good faith; and (4) the district court\\nerred by granting Magness’s motion for summary judgment on the receiver’s\\nunjust enrichment claim.\\n We initially decided this case on the second issue. Relying on the text of\\nTUFTA and interpretations by the Texas lower courts, our court, and our\\ncircuit’s district courts, we reversed the district court’s judgment and rendered\\njudgment in favor of the receiver. Magness filed petitions for panel rehearing\\nand rehearing en banc, in which he raised the argument that we should certify\\nthe question of TUFTA good faith to the Supreme Court of Texas. Because the\\nTexas courts to consider TUFTA good faith have not considered whether it\\nincludes a diligent investigation requirement or a futility exception, we certify\\nthe question––whether TUFTA good faith requires a transferee on inquiry\\nnotice to conduct an investigation or show such an investigation would have\\nbeen futile––to the Supreme Court of Texas. See In re Katrina Canal Breaches\\nLitig., 613 F.3d 504, 509 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Free v. Abbott Labs., 164 F.3d\\n270, 274 (5th Cir. 1999)) (“[C]ertification may be advisable where important\\nstate interests are at stake and the state courts have not provided clear\\nguidance on how to proceed.”).\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n Texas, like most states, has adopted a version of UFTA, which was\\ndesigned “to prevent debtors from transferring their property in bad faith\\nbefore creditors can reach it.” BMG Music v. Martinez, 74 F.3d 87, 89 (5th Cir.\\n1996). Like UFTA, TUFTA allows the recovery of property transfers made\\n“with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.” Tex.\\nBus. & Com. Code § 24.005(a)(1). Recipients of fraudulent transfers can\\nprevent clawback actions by proving they received property “in good faith and\\n 5\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nfor a reasonably equivalent value.” Id. § 24.009(a). Such recipients bear the\\nburden of proving TUFTA’s good faith defense. Flores v. Robinson Roofing &\\nConstr. Co., Inc., 161 S.W.3d 750, 756 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2005, pet.\\ndenied).\\n The term good faith is not defined by TUFTA or UFTA and has not been\\ninterpreted by the Supreme Court of Texas. The most prominent definition of\\nTUFTA good faith requires that to retain good faith, a transferee cannot\\npossess either actual or inquiry notice of a transfer’s fraudulent nature. Hahn\\nv. Love, 321 S.W.3d 517, 527 (Tex. App.––Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied)\\n(“A transferee who takes property with knowledge of such facts as would excite\\nthe suspicions of a person of ordinary prudence and put him on inquiry of the\\nfraudulent nature of an alleged transfer does not take the property in good\\nfaith and is not a bona fide purchaser.”); see also GE Capital Commercial, Inc.\\nv. Worthington Nat’l Bank, 754 F.3d 297, 313 (5th Cir. 2014) (describing Hahn\\nas “the most thorough and well-reasoned Texas case applying TUFTA’s ‘good\\nfaith’ defense”); Tex. Pattern Jury Charges––Bus., Consumer, Ins. & Emp’t\\n§ 105.29 (2016 ed.) (“A party takes an asset . . . in good faith if the party (1)\\nhad no actual notice of the fraudulent intent of the debtor and (2) lacked\\nknowledge of such facts as would cause a person of ordinary prudence to\\nquestion whether the debtor had fraudulent intent.”).\\n There is no dispute that Magness was on inquiry notice of the fraudulent\\nnature of SIB’s transfers. The jury made this finding. We also know that\\nMagness did not undertake an investigation prior to accepting the transfers.\\nAs the court below explained in a pre-judgment order, “[t]he parties agree that\\nthe Defendants [Magness] did not perform any inquiry before redeeming their\\nCDs. However, the Defendants argue that they are excused from this\\nrequirement because any investigation would have been futile and would not\\nhave led to discovery of Stanford’s fraudulent purpose.” This brings us to the\\n 6\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\ncrux of this case: does TUFTA good faith require a transferee on inquiry notice\\nto conduct an investigation, and if so, can that transferee retain the good faith\\ndefense if he does not conduct an investigation but later convinces the\\nfactfinder that such an investigation would not have turned up the fraudulent\\npurpose?\\n The lower court answered yes to both questions. It acknowledged that\\n“[n]either TUFTA nor Texas courts explicitly describe a duty to investigate as\\na required part of TUFTA’s good faith defense. See, e.g., Hahn, 321 S.W.3d at\\n526–27.” However, the court, “in making an Erie guess as to how Texas law\\nwould apply,” found it reasonable to adopt the approach taken by the Fifth\\nCircuit in interpreting the Bankruptcy Code’s mirror image good faith defense\\nto fraudulent transfer. See 11 U.S.C. § 548(c) (A transferee “that takes for value\\nand in good faith . . . may retain any interest transferred . . . to the extent that\\nsuch transferee . . . gave value to the debtor in exchange for such transfer.”).\\nThe Fifth Circuit, like many other courts interpreting § 548(c) good faith,\\npermits transferees to “rebut” a finding of inquiry notice by demonstrating that\\nthey conducted a “diligent investigation” into their suspicions. In re Am. Hous.\\nFound., 785 F.3d 143, 164 (5th Cir. 2015). Neither Magness nor the receiver\\ndisputed this case’s application. Thus, the lower court decided that a transferee\\non inquiry notice must conduct a diligent investigation to retain the TUFTA\\ngood faith defense.\\n The lower court next determined that the diligent inquiry requirement\\nobligated a futility exception. While the court found no controlling Texas or\\nFifth Circuit law on point, it was persuaded that a transferee meets the\\ndiligent inquiry requirement if he shows that an investigation would have been\\nfutile. Because the district court denied Magness’s motion for summary\\njudgment on TUFTA good faith, the questions of inquiry notice and futility\\nwere presented to the jury. While the jury determined Magness was on inquiry\\n 7\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nnotice of SIB’s Ponzi scheme, it also determined that an investigation into the\\nscheme would have been futile. The district court thus determined that\\nMagness retained good faith. On appeal, the receiver asked this court to reject\\nthe district court’s application of the futility exception to TUFTA good faith\\nand find that, under Hahn, the jury’s finding of inquiry notice defeats\\nMagness’s TUFTA good faith defense as a matter of law.\\n In our prior opinion, we agreed with the receiver and held that\\n“[r]egardless of the intricate nature of a fraud or scheme, failing to inquire\\nwhen on inquiry notice does not indicate good faith.” GMAG, 913 F.3d at 458.\\nOur holding aligns with other decisions interpreting TUFTA good faith. See\\nCitizens Nat’l Bank of Tex. v. NXS Constr., Inc., 387 S.W.3d 74, 84–86 (Tex.\\nApp.––Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (upholding jury’s finding that\\ntransferee had either actual or inquiry notice, which defeated the TUFTA good\\nfaith defense); Vasquez v. Old Austin Rd. Land Tr., No. 04-16-00025-CV, 2017\\nWL 3159466, at *3 (Tex. App.––San Antonio 2017) (concluding that the trial\\ncourt erred by granting the transferee TUFTA good faith on summary\\njudgment because of evidence that the transferees were on inquiry notice); SEC\\nv. Helms, No. A-13-CV-1036 ML, 2015 WL 1040443, at *14 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 10,\\n2015) (denying TUFTA good faith in the absence of actual knowledge of fraud\\nbecause of evidence that “would have led a reasonable investor to believe the\\ntransfer was fraudulent”); Hahn, 321 S.W.3d at 531 (denying motion for\\nsummary judgment on TUFTA good faith because of evidence supporting a\\nfinding of actual knowledge or inquiry notice).\\n In Citizens National, a Texas court of appeals evaluated a jury’s\\nrejection of a TUFTA good faith defense. 387 S.W.3d at 85–86. The jury\\ninstructions were pulled directly from Hahn’s definition of good faith: they\\ninstructed that good faith was defeated on grounds of actual or inquiry notice.\\nId. The court upheld the jury’s finding that one transferee had either actual or\\n 8\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\ninquiry notice and thus did not prove the TUFTA good faith defense. Id.\\nMagness argues this case is not on point because the court found the transferee\\n“knew the transfer was fraudulent as to some creditors,” and thus had actual\\nnotice––not inquiry notice. Id. at 86. However, another Texas case relied on\\nthe same principle to find inquiry notice sufficient to defeat the TUFTA good\\nfaith defense. See Vasquez, 2017 WL 3159466, at *3 (holding that the trial court\\nerred in granting transferee TUFTA good faith on summary judgment because\\nof evidence “sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether\\nthe appellees had [inquiry] notice that the appellants had a claim or interest\\nin the property”).\\n Federal courts have adhered to the Hahn standard as well. The Fifth\\nCircuit, evaluating whether the TUFTA good faith defense required an\\nobjective or subjective analysis, upheld a district court’s Hahn-based jury\\ninstructions. GE Capital, 754 F.3d at 313. The jury instructions stated in\\nrelevant part: “To establish that it acted in good faith, [transferee] must prove\\nby a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked actual and [inquiry]\\nknowledge of the debtor’s fraud.” Id. at 301. The instructions did not consider\\nwhether the transferee investigated his suspicions or whether such an\\ninvestigation would have been futile. Id. A federal district court, relying on\\nHahn, similarly held that though it believed two transferees received transfers\\nwithout actual knowledge of fraud, their TUFTA good faith defense was\\ndefeated because “there was significant evidence that should have led\\n[transferee] to investigate [transferor] and the purported security interest it\\nsought to acquire, and would have led a reasonable investor to believe the\\ntransfer was fraudulent.” Helms, 2015 WL 1040443, at *14. In other words,\\ninquiry notice defeated the TUFTA good faith defense.\\n Magness does not offer cases interpreting TUFTA good faith differently.\\nInstead, he argues that the Supreme Court of Texas has interpreted inquiry\\n 9\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nnotice differently in the real property context. The Supreme Court of Texas\\npreviously held that a party who purchases land while on inquiry notice “is\\ncharged with notice of all the occupant’s claims the purchaser might have\\nreasonably discovered on proper inquiry.” Madison v. Gordon, 39 S.W.3d 604,\\n606 (Tex. 2001). But under Texas law, purchasers are subject to a preceding\\nduty to “search the records, for they are the primary source of information as\\nto title.” Strong v. Strong, 98 S.W.2d 346, 348 (Tex. 1936). This duty does not\\narise from the definition of inquiry notice––it informs it. And while there is a\\ndiligent investigation requirement, there is no futility exception: “[t]he\\npurchaser cannot say, and cannot be allowed to say, that he made a proper\\ninquiry, and failed to ascertain the truth.” Id. (citation omitted).\\n Magness also relies on the fact that other state courts have interpreted\\ntheir UFTA provisions to include a diligent inquiry requirement for transferees\\non inquiry notice. See, e.g., Carey v. Soucy, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0533, 2018 WL\\n5556454, at *5 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2018). However, we found no example of\\na court applying the diligent inquiry requirement to hold that a transferee\\nretains good faith when he was on inquiry notice and did not investigate prior\\nto accepting a transfer. In fact, three courts applying this requirement held\\nthat transferees in this position did not act in good faith. In re Christou, Nos.\\n06-68251-MHM, 06-68376-MHM, 06-68251-MHM, 2010 WL 4008191, at *3–4\\n(Bankr. N.D. Ga. Sept. 24, 2010); Walro v. Hatfield, No. 1:16-cv-3053-RLY-\\nDML, 2017 WL 2772335, at *7 (S.D. Ind. June 27, 2017); Klein v. McGraw, No.\\n2:12-cv-00102-BSJ, 2014 WL 1492970, at *2, *8 (D. Utah Apr. 15, 2014). 2 But,\\nnotwithstanding these congruent outcomes, we recognize that other states\\nhave adopted a standard that the Texas courts have yet to consider. While the\\n\\n\\n 2 Reviewing these decisions, it appears that the jury’s findings that Magness was on\\ninquiry notice but would not have uncovered the Ponzi scheme had he investigated may sit\\nin tension.\\n 10\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nTexas courts have interpreted TUFTA good faith, they have not discussed the\\napplicability of either the diligent inquiry requirement or the futility exception.\\nGiven that other states’ UFTA good faith defenses have taken on a standard\\nnot considered by the Texas courts, we CERTIFY the following question to the\\nSupreme Court of Texas:\\n Is the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s “good faith”\\n defense against fraudulent transfer clawbacks, as codified at Tex.\\n Bus. & Com. Code § 24.009(a), available to a transferee who had\\n inquiry notice of the fraudulent behavior, did not conduct a diligent\\n inquiry, but who would not have been reasonably able to discover\\n that fraudulent activity through diligent inquiry?\\n\\n “We disclaim any intention or desire that the Supreme Court of Texas\\nconfine its reply to the precise form or scope of the question certified.” Janvey\\nv. Golf Channel, Inc., 792 F.3d 539, 547 (5th Cir. 2015).\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n A True Copy\\n Certified May 24, 2019\\n\\n\\n Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit\\n\\n\\n\\n 11\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4400611/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"STEWART"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"DENNIS"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"WILLETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623358/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Ralph S. JANVEY, in His Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford International Bank Limited Et Al, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GMAG, L.L.C. ; Magness Securities, L.L.C.; Gary D. Magness ; Mango Five Family Incorporated, in Its Capacity as Trustee for the Gary D. Magness Irrevocable Trust, Defendants-Appellees\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-24\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nCase: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals\n Fifth Circuit\n\n FILED\n May 24, 2019\n No. 17-11526\n Lyle W. Cayce\n Clerk\n\nRALPH S. JANVEY, in his Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the\nStanford International Bank Limited et al,\n\n Plaintiff - Appellant\n\nv.\n\nGMAG, L.L.C.; MAGNESS SECURITIES, L.L.C.; GARY D. MAGNESS;\nMANGO FIVE FAMILY INCORPORATED, in its Capacity as Trustee for the\nGary D. Magness Irrevocable Trust,\n\n Defendants - Appellees\n\n\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Texas\n\n\n ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING\nBefore STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.\nPER CURIAM:\n The original opinion in this case was filed on January 9, 2019. Janvey v.\nGMAG, LLC, 913 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2019). There, we held that a transferee on\ninquiry notice of a transfer’s fraudulent nature is not entitled to the Texas\nUniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s (“TUFTA”) good faith affirmative defense.\nBecause the jury determined that the Defendants-Appellees were on inquiry\nnotice of the fraudulent nature of transfers received from a Ponzi scheme, we\nreversed the district court’s judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the\n\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11526\nPlaintiff-Appellant. Defendants-Appellees submitted a petition for panel\nrehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc, which are now pending before\nthe court. In these petitions, Defendants-Appellees requested, in the\nalternative, that we certify a question to the Supreme Court of Texas on\ngrounds that interpreting TUFTA’s good faith defense is a significant issue of\nfirst impression, and the panel’s interpretation differs from that of other\njurisdictions to analyze their own Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”)\ngood faith defenses.\n The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED, the original opinion is\nVACATED, and the panel substitutes the following opinion certifying a\nquestion to the Supreme Court of Texas.\n CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF\nAPPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF\nTEXAS, PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ART. 5 § 3–C AND\nTEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 58.1.\n I. BACKGROUND\n The SEC uncovered the Stanford International Bank (“SIB”) Ponzi\nscheme in 2009. For close to two decades, SIB issued fraudulent certificates of\ndeposit (“CDs”) that purported to pay fixed interest rates higher than those\noffered by U.S. commercial banks as a result of assets invested in a well-\ndiversified portfolio of marketable securities. In fact, the “returns” to investors\nwere derived from new investors’ funds. The Ponzi scheme left over 18,000\ninvestors with $7 billion in losses. The district court appointed Plaintiff-\nAppellant Ralph S. Janvey (“the receiver”) to recover SIB’s assets and\ndistribute them to the scheme’s victims.\n Defendants-Appellees are Gary D. Magness and several entities in which\nhe maintains his wealth (collectively, “Magness”). Magness was among the\nlargest U.S. investors in SIB. Between December 2004 and October 2006,\n 2\n\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11526\nMagness purchased $79 million in SIB CDs. As of November 2006, Magness’s\nfamily trust’s investment committee monitored his investments, including the\nSIB CDs.\n Bloomberg reported in July 2008 that the SEC was investigating SIB. At\nan October 2008 meeting, the investment committee persuaded Magness to\ntake back, at minimum, his accumulated interest from SIB. The receiver\nasserts this decision was the result of mounting skepticism about SIB.\nMagness asserts it was because he was experiencing significant liquidity\nproblems given the tumbling stock market.\n Later that month, Magness’s financial advisor approached SIB for a\nredemption. On October 9, 2008, SIB instead agreed to loan Magness $25\nmillion on his accumulated interest. SIB applied Magness’s outstanding\n“accrued CD interest” to repay most of this loan. In other words, Magness\nrepaid $24.3 million of the $25 million loan with “paper interest” and $700,000\nwith cash. Between October 24 and 28, 2008, Magness borrowed an additional\n$63.2 million from SIB. In total, Magness received $88.2 million in cash from\nSIB in October 2008.\n The receiver sued Magness to recover funds under theories of (1) TUFTA\nfraudulent transfer and (2) unjust enrichment. The receiver obtained partial\nsummary judgment as to funds in excess of Magness’s original investment, and\nMagness returned this $8.5 million in fraudulent transfers to the receiver.\n The receiver moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a ruling that\nthe remaining amounts at issue were also fraudulent transfers. Magness\nmoved for summary judgment on his TUFTA good faith defense and the\nreceiver’s unjust enrichment claim. The district court granted the receiver’s\nmotion and denied Magness’s motion.\n Just before trial, the district court sua sponte reconsidered its denial of\nMagness’s motion for summary judgment and rejected the receiver’s unjust\n 3\n\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11526\nenrichment claim. Thus, the only issue presented to the jury was whether\nMagness received $79 million, 1 already determined to be fraudulent transfers,\nin good faith. After Magness’s case-in-chief, the receiver moved for judgment\non grounds that (1) Magness was estopped from claiming he took the transfers\nin good faith and (2) no reasonable jury could conclude that Magness\nestablished TUFTA’s good faith defense. The district court did not rule on the\nmotion.\n The jury determined that Magness had inquiry notice that SIB was\nengaged in a Ponzi scheme, but not actual knowledge. Inquiry notice was\ndefined in the jury instructions as “knowledge of facts relating to the\ntransaction at issue that would have excited the suspicions of a reasonable\nperson and led that person to investigate.” The jury also determined that an\ninvestigation would have been futile. A futile investigation was defined in the\njury instructions as one where “a diligent inquiry would not have revealed to a\nreasonable person that Stanford was running a Ponzi scheme.”\n The receiver moved for entry of judgment on the verdict, arguing that\nthe jury’s finding of inquiry notice defeated Magness’s TUFTA good faith\ndefense as a matter of law. The receiver also renewed his motion for judgment\nas a matter of law. The district court denied the receiver’s motions and held\nthat Magness satisfied his good faith defense. The receiver renewed his post-\ntrial motions and moved for a new trial. The court denied these motions and\nissued its final judgment that the receiver take nothing aside from his prior\nreceipt of $8.5 million.\n On appeal, the receiver argued that (1) Magness was estopped from\ncontesting his actual knowledge of SIB’s fraud or insolvency; (2) the jury’s\n\n\n 1 Magness originally invested $79 million in SIB. He borrowed $88.2 million in cash\nfrom SIB, but he paid $700,000 back to SIB in cash and has already ceded $8.5 million to the\nreceiver. The $79 million “loaned” to Magness from SIB remains in dispute.\n 4\n\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11526\nfinding of inquiry notice defeated Magness’s TUFTA good faith defense as a\nmatter of law; (3) the district court’s jury instructions were erroneous and\nreduced Magness’s burden to establish good faith; and (4) the district court\nerred by granting Magness’s motion for summary judgment on the receiver’s\nunjust enrichment claim.\n We initially decided this case on the second issue. Relying on the text of\nTUFTA and interpretations by the Texas lower courts, our court, and our\ncircuit’s district courts, we reversed the district court’s judgment and rendered\njudgment in favor of the receiver. Magness filed petitions for panel rehearing\nand rehearing en banc, in which he raised the argument that we should certify\nthe question of TUFTA good faith to the Supreme Court of Texas. Because the\nTexas courts to consider TUFTA good faith have not considered whether it\nincludes a diligent investigation requirement or a futility exception, we certify\nthe question––whether TUFTA good faith requires a transferee on inquiry\nnotice to conduct an investigation or show such an investigation would have\nbeen futile––to the Supreme Court of Texas. See In re Katrina Canal Breaches\nLitig., 613 F.3d 504, 509 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Free v. Abbott Labs., 164 F.3d\n270, 274 (5th Cir. 1999)) (“[C]ertification may be advisable where important\nstate interests are at stake and the state courts have not provided clear\nguidance on how to proceed.”).\n II. DISCUSSION\n Texas, like most states, has adopted a version of UFTA, which was\ndesigned “to prevent debtors from transferring their property in bad faith\nbefore creditors can reach it.” BMG Music v. Martinez, 74 F.3d 87, 89 (5th Cir.\n1996). Like UFTA, TUFTA allows the recovery of property transfers made\n“with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.” Tex.\nBus. & Com. Code § 24.005(a)(1). Recipients of fraudulent transfers can\nprevent clawback actions by proving they received property “in good faith and\n 5\n\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11526\nfor a reasonably equivalent value.” Id. § 24.009(a). Such recipients bear the\nburden of proving TUFTA’s good faith defense. Flores v. Robinson Roofing &\nConstr. Co., Inc., 161 S.W.3d 750, 756 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2005, pet.\ndenied).\n The term good faith is not defined by TUFTA or UFTA and has not been\ninterpreted by the Supreme Court of Texas. The most prominent definition of\nTUFTA good faith requires that to retain good faith, a transferee cannot\npossess either actual or inquiry notice of a transfer’s fraudulent nature. Hahn\nv. Love, 321 S.W.3d 517, 527 (Tex. App.––Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied)\n(“A transferee who takes property with knowledge of such facts as would excite\nthe suspicions of a person of ordinary prudence and put him on inquiry of the\nfraudulent nature of an alleged transfer does not take the property in good\nfaith and is not a bona fide purchaser.”); see also GE Capital Commercial, Inc.\nv. Worthington Nat’l Bank, 754 F.3d 297, 313 (5th Cir. 2014) (describing Hahn\nas “the most thorough and well-reasoned Texas case applying TUFTA’s ‘good\nfaith’ defense”); Tex. Pattern Jury Charges––Bus., Consumer, Ins. & Emp’t\n§ 105.29 (2016 ed.) (“A party takes an asset . . . in good faith if the party (1)\nhad no actual notice of the fraudulent intent of the debtor and (2) lacked\nknowledge of such facts as would cause a person of ordinary prudence to\nquestion whether the debtor had fraudulent intent.”).\n There is no dispute that Magness was on inquiry notice of the fraudulent\nnature of SIB’s transfers. The jury made this finding. We also know that\nMagness did not undertake an investigation prior to accepting the transfers.\nAs the court below explained in a pre-judgment order, “[t]he parties agree that\nthe Defendants [Magness] did not perform any inquiry before redeeming their\nCDs. However, the Defendants argue that they are excused from this\nrequirement because any investigation would have been futile and would not\nhave led to discovery of Stanford’s fraudulent purpose.” This brings us to the\n 6\n\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11526\ncrux of this case: does TUFTA good faith require a transferee on inquiry notice\nto conduct an investigation, and if so, can that transferee retain the good faith\ndefense if he does not conduct an investigation but later convinces the\nfactfinder that such an investigation would not have turned up the fraudulent\npurpose?\n The lower court answered yes to both questions. It acknowledged that\n“[n]either TUFTA nor Texas courts explicitly describe a duty to investigate as\na required part of TUFTA’s good faith defense. See, e.g., Hahn, 321 S.W.3d at\n526–27.” However, the court, “in making an Erie guess as to how Texas law\nwould apply,” found it reasonable to adopt the approach taken by the Fifth\nCircuit in interpreting the Bankruptcy Code’s mirror image good faith defense\nto fraudulent transfer. See 11 U.S.C. § 548(c) (A transferee “that takes for value\nand in good faith . . . may retain any interest transferred . . . to the extent that\nsuch transferee . . . gave value to the debtor in exchange for such transfer.”).\nThe Fifth Circuit, like many other courts interpreting § 548(c) good faith,\npermits transferees to “rebut” a finding of inquiry notice by demonstrating that\nthey conducted a “diligent investigation” into their suspicions. In re Am. Hous.\nFound., 785 F.3d 143, 164 (5th Cir. 2015). Neither Magness nor the receiver\ndisputed this case’s application. Thus, the lower court decided that a transferee\non inquiry notice must conduct a diligent investigation to retain the TUFTA\ngood faith defense.\n The lower court next determined that the diligent inquiry requirement\nobligated a futility exception. While the court found no controlling Texas or\nFifth Circuit law on point, it was persuaded that a transferee meets the\ndiligent inquiry requirement if he shows that an investigation would have been\nfutile. Because the district court denied Magness’s motion for summary\njudgment on TUFTA good faith, the questions of inquiry notice and futility\nwere presented to the jury. While the jury determined Magness was on inquiry\n 7\n\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11526\nnotice of SIB’s Ponzi scheme, it also determined that an investigation into the\nscheme would have been futile. The district court thus determined that\nMagness retained good faith. On appeal, the receiver asked this court to reject\nthe district court’s application of the futility exception to TUFTA good faith\nand find that, under Hahn, the jury’s finding of inquiry notice defeats\nMagness’s TUFTA good faith defense as a matter of law.\n In our prior opinion, we agreed with the receiver and held that\n“[r]egardless of the intricate nature of a fraud or scheme, failing to inquire\nwhen on inquiry notice does not indicate good faith.” GMAG, 913 F.3d at 458.\nOur holding aligns with other decisions interpreting TUFTA good faith. See\nCitizens Nat’l Bank of Tex. v. NXS Constr., Inc., 387 S.W.3d 74, 84–86 (Tex.\nApp.––Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (upholding jury’s finding that\ntransferee had either actual or inquiry notice, which defeated the TUFTA good\nfaith defense); Vasquez v. Old Austin Rd. Land Tr., No. 04-16-00025-CV, 2017\nWL 3159466, at *3 (Tex. App.––San Antonio 2017) (concluding that the trial\ncourt erred by granting the transferee TUFTA good faith on summary\njudgment because of evidence that the transferees were on inquiry notice); SEC\nv. Helms, No. A-13-CV-1036 ML, 2015 WL 1040443, at *14 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 10,\n2015) (denying TUFTA good faith in the absence of actual knowledge of fraud\nbecause of evidence that “would have led a reasonable investor to believe the\ntransfer was fraudulent”); Hahn, 321 S.W.3d at 531 (denying motion for\nsummary judgment on TUFTA good faith because of evidence supporting a\nfinding of actual knowledge or inquiry notice).\n In Citizens National, a Texas court of appeals evaluated a jury’s\nrejection of a TUFTA good faith defense. 387 S.W.3d at 85–86. The jury\ninstructions were pulled directly from Hahn’s definition of good faith: they\ninstructed that good faith was defeated on grounds of actual or inquiry notice.\nId. The court upheld the jury’s finding that one transferee had either actual or\n 8\n\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11526\ninquiry notice and thus did not prove the TUFTA good faith defense. Id.\nMagness argues this case is not on point because the court found the transferee\n“knew the transfer was fraudulent as to some creditors,” and thus had actual\nnotice––not inquiry notice. Id. at 86. However, another Texas case relied on\nthe same principle to find inquiry notice sufficient to defeat the TUFTA good\nfaith defense. See Vasquez, 2017 WL 3159466, at *3 (holding that the trial court\nerred in granting transferee TUFTA good faith on summary judgment because\nof evidence “sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether\nthe appellees had [inquiry] notice that the appellants had a claim or interest\nin the property”).\n Federal courts have adhered to the Hahn standard as well. The Fifth\nCircuit, evaluating whether the TUFTA good faith defense required an\nobjective or subjective analysis, upheld a district court’s Hahn-based jury\ninstructions. GE Capital, 754 F.3d at 313. The jury instructions stated in\nrelevant part: “To establish that it acted in good faith, [transferee] must prove\nby a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked actual and [inquiry]\nknowledge of the debtor’s fraud.” Id. at 301. The instructions did not consider\nwhether the transferee investigated his suspicions or whether such an\ninvestigation would have been futile. Id. A federal district court, relying on\nHahn, similarly held that though it believed two transferees received transfers\nwithout actual knowledge of fraud, their TUFTA good faith defense was\ndefeated because “there was significant evidence that should have led\n[transferee] to investigate [transferor] and the purported security interest it\nsought to acquire, and would have led a reasonable investor to believe the\ntransfer was fraudulent.” Helms, 2015 WL 1040443, at *14. In other words,\ninquiry notice defeated the TUFTA good faith defense.\n Magness does not offer cases interpreting TUFTA good faith differently.\nInstead, he argues that the Supreme Court of Texas has interpreted inquiry\n 9\n\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11526\nnotice differently in the real property context. The Supreme Court of Texas\npreviously held that a party who purchases land while on inquiry notice “is\ncharged with notice of all the occupant’s claims the purchaser might have\nreasonably discovered on proper inquiry.” Madison v. Gordon, 39 S.W.3d 604,\n606 (Tex. 2001). But under Texas law, purchasers are subject to a preceding\nduty to “search the records, for they are the primary source of information as\nto title.” Strong v. Strong, 98 S.W.2d 346, 348 (Tex. 1936). This duty does not\narise from the definition of inquiry notice––it informs it. And while there is a\ndiligent investigation requirement, there is no futility exception: “[t]he\npurchaser cannot say, and cannot be allowed to say, that he made a proper\ninquiry, and failed to ascertain the truth.” Id. (citation omitted).\n Magness also relies on the fact that other state courts have interpreted\ntheir UFTA provisions to include a diligent inquiry requirement for transferees\non inquiry notice. See, e.g., Carey v. Soucy, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0533, 2018 WL\n5556454, at *5 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2018). However, we found no example of\na court applying the diligent inquiry requirement to hold that a transferee\nretains good faith when he was on inquiry notice and did not investigate prior\nto accepting a transfer. In fact, three courts applying this requirement held\nthat transferees in this position did not act in good faith. In re Christou, Nos.\n06-68251-MHM, 06-68376-MHM, 06-68251-MHM, 2010 WL 4008191, at *3–4\n(Bankr. N.D. Ga. Sept. 24, 2010); Walro v. Hatfield, No. 1:16-cv-3053-RLY-\nDML, 2017 WL 2772335, at *7 (S.D. Ind. June 27, 2017); Klein v. McGraw, No.\n2:12-cv-00102-BSJ, 2014 WL 1492970, at *2, *8 (D. Utah Apr. 15, 2014). 2 But,\nnotwithstanding these congruent outcomes, we recognize that other states\nhave adopted a standard that the Texas courts have yet to consider. While the\n\n\n 2 Reviewing these decisions, it appears that the jury’s findings that Magness was on\ninquiry notice but would not have uncovered the Ponzi scheme had he investigated may sit\nin tension.\n 10\n\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11526\nTexas courts have interpreted TUFTA good faith, they have not discussed the\napplicability of either the diligent inquiry requirement or the futility exception.\nGiven that other states’ UFTA good faith defenses have taken on a standard\nnot considered by the Texas courts, we CERTIFY the following question to the\nSupreme Court of Texas:\n Is the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s “good faith”\n defense against fraudulent transfer clawbacks, as codified at Tex.\n Bus. & Com. Code § 24.009(a), available to a transferee who had\n inquiry notice of the fraudulent behavior, did not conduct a diligent\n inquiry, but who would not have been reasonably able to discover\n that fraudulent activity through diligent inquiry?\n\n “We disclaim any intention or desire that the Supreme Court of Texas\nconfine its reply to the precise form or scope of the question certified.” Janvey\nv. Golf Channel, Inc., 792 F.3d 539, 547 (5th Cir. 2015).\n\n\n\n\n A True Copy\n Certified May 24, 2019\n\n\n Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit\n\n\n\n 11\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Ralph S. JANVEY, in His Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford International Bank Limited Et Al, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GMAG, L.L.C. ; Magness Securities, L.L.C.; Gary D. Magness ; Mango Five Family Incorporated, in Its Capacity as Trustee for the Gary D. Magness Irrevocable Trust, Defendants-Appellees\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-24\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nCase: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n FILED\\n May 24, 2019\\n No. 17-11526\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\n Clerk\\n\\nRALPH S. JANVEY, in his Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the\\nStanford International Bank Limited et al,\\n\\n Plaintiff - Appellant\\n\\nv.\\n\\nGMAG, L.L.C.; MAGNESS SECURITIES, L.L.C.; GARY D. MAGNESS;\\nMANGO FIVE FAMILY INCORPORATED, in its Capacity as Trustee for the\\nGary D. Magness Irrevocable Trust,\\n\\n Defendants - Appellees\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Texas\\n\\n\\n ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING\\nBefore STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.\\nPER CURIAM:\\n The original opinion in this case was filed on January 9, 2019. Janvey v.\\nGMAG, LLC, 913 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2019). There, we held that a transferee on\\ninquiry notice of a transfer’s fraudulent nature is not entitled to the Texas\\nUniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s (“TUFTA”) good faith affirmative defense.\\nBecause the jury determined that the Defendants-Appellees were on inquiry\\nnotice of the fraudulent nature of transfers received from a Ponzi scheme, we\\nreversed the district court’s judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nPlaintiff-Appellant. Defendants-Appellees submitted a petition for panel\\nrehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc, which are now pending before\\nthe court. In these petitions, Defendants-Appellees requested, in the\\nalternative, that we certify a question to the Supreme Court of Texas on\\ngrounds that interpreting TUFTA’s good faith defense is a significant issue of\\nfirst impression, and the panel’s interpretation differs from that of other\\njurisdictions to analyze their own Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”)\\ngood faith defenses.\\n The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED, the original opinion is\\nVACATED, and the panel substitutes the following opinion certifying a\\nquestion to the Supreme Court of Texas.\\n CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF\\nAPPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF\\nTEXAS, PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ART. 5 § 3–C AND\\nTEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 58.1.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n The SEC uncovered the Stanford International Bank (“SIB”) Ponzi\\nscheme in 2009. For close to two decades, SIB issued fraudulent certificates of\\ndeposit (“CDs”) that purported to pay fixed interest rates higher than those\\noffered by U.S. commercial banks as a result of assets invested in a well-\\ndiversified portfolio of marketable securities. In fact, the “returns” to investors\\nwere derived from new investors’ funds. The Ponzi scheme left over 18,000\\ninvestors with $7 billion in losses. The district court appointed Plaintiff-\\nAppellant Ralph S. Janvey (“the receiver”) to recover SIB’s assets and\\ndistribute them to the scheme’s victims.\\n Defendants-Appellees are Gary D. Magness and several entities in which\\nhe maintains his wealth (collectively, “Magness”). Magness was among the\\nlargest U.S. investors in SIB. Between December 2004 and October 2006,\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nMagness purchased $79 million in SIB CDs. As of November 2006, Magness’s\\nfamily trust’s investment committee monitored his investments, including the\\nSIB CDs.\\n Bloomberg reported in July 2008 that the SEC was investigating SIB. At\\nan October 2008 meeting, the investment committee persuaded Magness to\\ntake back, at minimum, his accumulated interest from SIB. The receiver\\nasserts this decision was the result of mounting skepticism about SIB.\\nMagness asserts it was because he was experiencing significant liquidity\\nproblems given the tumbling stock market.\\n Later that month, Magness’s financial advisor approached SIB for a\\nredemption. On October 9, 2008, SIB instead agreed to loan Magness $25\\nmillion on his accumulated interest. SIB applied Magness’s outstanding\\n“accrued CD interest” to repay most of this loan. In other words, Magness\\nrepaid $24.3 million of the $25 million loan with “paper interest” and $700,000\\nwith cash. Between October 24 and 28, 2008, Magness borrowed an additional\\n$63.2 million from SIB. In total, Magness received $88.2 million in cash from\\nSIB in October 2008.\\n The receiver sued Magness to recover funds under theories of (1) TUFTA\\nfraudulent transfer and (2) unjust enrichment. The receiver obtained partial\\nsummary judgment as to funds in excess of Magness’s original investment, and\\nMagness returned this $8.5 million in fraudulent transfers to the receiver.\\n The receiver moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a ruling that\\nthe remaining amounts at issue were also fraudulent transfers. Magness\\nmoved for summary judgment on his TUFTA good faith defense and the\\nreceiver’s unjust enrichment claim. The district court granted the receiver’s\\nmotion and denied Magness’s motion.\\n Just before trial, the district court sua sponte reconsidered its denial of\\nMagness’s motion for summary judgment and rejected the receiver’s unjust\\n 3\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nenrichment claim. Thus, the only issue presented to the jury was whether\\nMagness received $79 million, 1 already determined to be fraudulent transfers,\\nin good faith. After Magness’s case-in-chief, the receiver moved for judgment\\non grounds that (1) Magness was estopped from claiming he took the transfers\\nin good faith and (2) no reasonable jury could conclude that Magness\\nestablished TUFTA’s good faith defense. The district court did not rule on the\\nmotion.\\n The jury determined that Magness had inquiry notice that SIB was\\nengaged in a Ponzi scheme, but not actual knowledge. Inquiry notice was\\ndefined in the jury instructions as “knowledge of facts relating to the\\ntransaction at issue that would have excited the suspicions of a reasonable\\nperson and led that person to investigate.” The jury also determined that an\\ninvestigation would have been futile. A futile investigation was defined in the\\njury instructions as one where “a diligent inquiry would not have revealed to a\\nreasonable person that Stanford was running a Ponzi scheme.”\\n The receiver moved for entry of judgment on the verdict, arguing that\\nthe jury’s finding of inquiry notice defeated Magness’s TUFTA good faith\\ndefense as a matter of law. The receiver also renewed his motion for judgment\\nas a matter of law. The district court denied the receiver’s motions and held\\nthat Magness satisfied his good faith defense. The receiver renewed his post-\\ntrial motions and moved for a new trial. The court denied these motions and\\nissued its final judgment that the receiver take nothing aside from his prior\\nreceipt of $8.5 million.\\n On appeal, the receiver argued that (1) Magness was estopped from\\ncontesting his actual knowledge of SIB’s fraud or insolvency; (2) the jury’s\\n\\n\\n 1 Magness originally invested $79 million in SIB. He borrowed $88.2 million in cash\\nfrom SIB, but he paid $700,000 back to SIB in cash and has already ceded $8.5 million to the\\nreceiver. The $79 million “loaned” to Magness from SIB remains in dispute.\\n 4\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nfinding of inquiry notice defeated Magness’s TUFTA good faith defense as a\\nmatter of law; (3) the district court’s jury instructions were erroneous and\\nreduced Magness’s burden to establish good faith; and (4) the district court\\nerred by granting Magness’s motion for summary judgment on the receiver’s\\nunjust enrichment claim.\\n We initially decided this case on the second issue. Relying on the text of\\nTUFTA and interpretations by the Texas lower courts, our court, and our\\ncircuit’s district courts, we reversed the district court’s judgment and rendered\\njudgment in favor of the receiver. Magness filed petitions for panel rehearing\\nand rehearing en banc, in which he raised the argument that we should certify\\nthe question of TUFTA good faith to the Supreme Court of Texas. Because the\\nTexas courts to consider TUFTA good faith have not considered whether it\\nincludes a diligent investigation requirement or a futility exception, we certify\\nthe question––whether TUFTA good faith requires a transferee on inquiry\\nnotice to conduct an investigation or show such an investigation would have\\nbeen futile––to the Supreme Court of Texas. See In re Katrina Canal Breaches\\nLitig., 613 F.3d 504, 509 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Free v. Abbott Labs., 164 F.3d\\n270, 274 (5th Cir. 1999)) (“[C]ertification may be advisable where important\\nstate interests are at stake and the state courts have not provided clear\\nguidance on how to proceed.”).\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n Texas, like most states, has adopted a version of UFTA, which was\\ndesigned “to prevent debtors from transferring their property in bad faith\\nbefore creditors can reach it.” BMG Music v. Martinez, 74 F.3d 87, 89 (5th Cir.\\n1996). Like UFTA, TUFTA allows the recovery of property transfers made\\n“with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.” Tex.\\nBus. & Com. Code § 24.005(a)(1). Recipients of fraudulent transfers can\\nprevent clawback actions by proving they received property “in good faith and\\n 5\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nfor a reasonably equivalent value.” Id. § 24.009(a). Such recipients bear the\\nburden of proving TUFTA’s good faith defense. Flores v. Robinson Roofing &\\nConstr. Co., Inc., 161 S.W.3d 750, 756 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2005, pet.\\ndenied).\\n The term good faith is not defined by TUFTA or UFTA and has not been\\ninterpreted by the Supreme Court of Texas. The most prominent definition of\\nTUFTA good faith requires that to retain good faith, a transferee cannot\\npossess either actual or inquiry notice of a transfer’s fraudulent nature. Hahn\\nv. Love, 321 S.W.3d 517, 527 (Tex. App.––Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied)\\n(“A transferee who takes property with knowledge of such facts as would excite\\nthe suspicions of a person of ordinary prudence and put him on inquiry of the\\nfraudulent nature of an alleged transfer does not take the property in good\\nfaith and is not a bona fide purchaser.”); see also GE Capital Commercial, Inc.\\nv. Worthington Nat’l Bank, 754 F.3d 297, 313 (5th Cir. 2014) (describing Hahn\\nas “the most thorough and well-reasoned Texas case applying TUFTA’s ‘good\\nfaith’ defense”); Tex. Pattern Jury Charges––Bus., Consumer, Ins. & Emp’t\\n§ 105.29 (2016 ed.) (“A party takes an asset . . . in good faith if the party (1)\\nhad no actual notice of the fraudulent intent of the debtor and (2) lacked\\nknowledge of such facts as would cause a person of ordinary prudence to\\nquestion whether the debtor had fraudulent intent.”).\\n There is no dispute that Magness was on inquiry notice of the fraudulent\\nnature of SIB’s transfers. The jury made this finding. We also know that\\nMagness did not undertake an investigation prior to accepting the transfers.\\nAs the court below explained in a pre-judgment order, “[t]he parties agree that\\nthe Defendants [Magness] did not perform any inquiry before redeeming their\\nCDs. However, the Defendants argue that they are excused from this\\nrequirement because any investigation would have been futile and would not\\nhave led to discovery of Stanford’s fraudulent purpose.” This brings us to the\\n 6\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\ncrux of this case: does TUFTA good faith require a transferee on inquiry notice\\nto conduct an investigation, and if so, can that transferee retain the good faith\\ndefense if he does not conduct an investigation but later convinces the\\nfactfinder that such an investigation would not have turned up the fraudulent\\npurpose?\\n The lower court answered yes to both questions. It acknowledged that\\n“[n]either TUFTA nor Texas courts explicitly describe a duty to investigate as\\na required part of TUFTA’s good faith defense. See, e.g., Hahn, 321 S.W.3d at\\n526–27.” However, the court, “in making an Erie guess as to how Texas law\\nwould apply,” found it reasonable to adopt the approach taken by the Fifth\\nCircuit in interpreting the Bankruptcy Code’s mirror image good faith defense\\nto fraudulent transfer. See 11 U.S.C. § 548(c) (A transferee “that takes for value\\nand in good faith . . . may retain any interest transferred . . . to the extent that\\nsuch transferee . . . gave value to the debtor in exchange for such transfer.”).\\nThe Fifth Circuit, like many other courts interpreting § 548(c) good faith,\\npermits transferees to “rebut” a finding of inquiry notice by demonstrating that\\nthey conducted a “diligent investigation” into their suspicions. In re Am. Hous.\\nFound., 785 F.3d 143, 164 (5th Cir. 2015). Neither Magness nor the receiver\\ndisputed this case’s application. Thus, the lower court decided that a transferee\\non inquiry notice must conduct a diligent investigation to retain the TUFTA\\ngood faith defense.\\n The lower court next determined that the diligent inquiry requirement\\nobligated a futility exception. While the court found no controlling Texas or\\nFifth Circuit law on point, it was persuaded that a transferee meets the\\ndiligent inquiry requirement if he shows that an investigation would have been\\nfutile. Because the district court denied Magness’s motion for summary\\njudgment on TUFTA good faith, the questions of inquiry notice and futility\\nwere presented to the jury. While the jury determined Magness was on inquiry\\n 7\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nnotice of SIB’s Ponzi scheme, it also determined that an investigation into the\\nscheme would have been futile. The district court thus determined that\\nMagness retained good faith. On appeal, the receiver asked this court to reject\\nthe district court’s application of the futility exception to TUFTA good faith\\nand find that, under Hahn, the jury’s finding of inquiry notice defeats\\nMagness’s TUFTA good faith defense as a matter of law.\\n In our prior opinion, we agreed with the receiver and held that\\n“[r]egardless of the intricate nature of a fraud or scheme, failing to inquire\\nwhen on inquiry notice does not indicate good faith.” GMAG, 913 F.3d at 458.\\nOur holding aligns with other decisions interpreting TUFTA good faith. See\\nCitizens Nat’l Bank of Tex. v. NXS Constr., Inc., 387 S.W.3d 74, 84–86 (Tex.\\nApp.––Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (upholding jury’s finding that\\ntransferee had either actual or inquiry notice, which defeated the TUFTA good\\nfaith defense); Vasquez v. Old Austin Rd. Land Tr., No. 04-16-00025-CV, 2017\\nWL 3159466, at *3 (Tex. App.––San Antonio 2017) (concluding that the trial\\ncourt erred by granting the transferee TUFTA good faith on summary\\njudgment because of evidence that the transferees were on inquiry notice); SEC\\nv. Helms, No. A-13-CV-1036 ML, 2015 WL 1040443, at *14 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 10,\\n2015) (denying TUFTA good faith in the absence of actual knowledge of fraud\\nbecause of evidence that “would have led a reasonable investor to believe the\\ntransfer was fraudulent”); Hahn, 321 S.W.3d at 531 (denying motion for\\nsummary judgment on TUFTA good faith because of evidence supporting a\\nfinding of actual knowledge or inquiry notice).\\n In Citizens National, a Texas court of appeals evaluated a jury’s\\nrejection of a TUFTA good faith defense. 387 S.W.3d at 85–86. The jury\\ninstructions were pulled directly from Hahn’s definition of good faith: they\\ninstructed that good faith was defeated on grounds of actual or inquiry notice.\\nId. The court upheld the jury’s finding that one transferee had either actual or\\n 8\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\ninquiry notice and thus did not prove the TUFTA good faith defense. Id.\\nMagness argues this case is not on point because the court found the transferee\\n“knew the transfer was fraudulent as to some creditors,” and thus had actual\\nnotice––not inquiry notice. Id. at 86. However, another Texas case relied on\\nthe same principle to find inquiry notice sufficient to defeat the TUFTA good\\nfaith defense. See Vasquez, 2017 WL 3159466, at *3 (holding that the trial court\\nerred in granting transferee TUFTA good faith on summary judgment because\\nof evidence “sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether\\nthe appellees had [inquiry] notice that the appellants had a claim or interest\\nin the property”).\\n Federal courts have adhered to the Hahn standard as well. The Fifth\\nCircuit, evaluating whether the TUFTA good faith defense required an\\nobjective or subjective analysis, upheld a district court’s Hahn-based jury\\ninstructions. GE Capital, 754 F.3d at 313. The jury instructions stated in\\nrelevant part: “To establish that it acted in good faith, [transferee] must prove\\nby a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked actual and [inquiry]\\nknowledge of the debtor’s fraud.” Id. at 301. The instructions did not consider\\nwhether the transferee investigated his suspicions or whether such an\\ninvestigation would have been futile. Id. A federal district court, relying on\\nHahn, similarly held that though it believed two transferees received transfers\\nwithout actual knowledge of fraud, their TUFTA good faith defense was\\ndefeated because “there was significant evidence that should have led\\n[transferee] to investigate [transferor] and the purported security interest it\\nsought to acquire, and would have led a reasonable investor to believe the\\ntransfer was fraudulent.” Helms, 2015 WL 1040443, at *14. In other words,\\ninquiry notice defeated the TUFTA good faith defense.\\n Magness does not offer cases interpreting TUFTA good faith differently.\\nInstead, he argues that the Supreme Court of Texas has interpreted inquiry\\n 9\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nnotice differently in the real property context. The Supreme Court of Texas\\npreviously held that a party who purchases land while on inquiry notice “is\\ncharged with notice of all the occupant’s claims the purchaser might have\\nreasonably discovered on proper inquiry.” Madison v. Gordon, 39 S.W.3d 604,\\n606 (Tex. 2001). But under Texas law, purchasers are subject to a preceding\\nduty to “search the records, for they are the primary source of information as\\nto title.” Strong v. Strong, 98 S.W.2d 346, 348 (Tex. 1936). This duty does not\\narise from the definition of inquiry notice––it informs it. And while there is a\\ndiligent investigation requirement, there is no futility exception: “[t]he\\npurchaser cannot say, and cannot be allowed to say, that he made a proper\\ninquiry, and failed to ascertain the truth.” Id. (citation omitted).\\n Magness also relies on the fact that other state courts have interpreted\\ntheir UFTA provisions to include a diligent inquiry requirement for transferees\\non inquiry notice. See, e.g., Carey v. Soucy, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0533, 2018 WL\\n5556454, at *5 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2018). However, we found no example of\\na court applying the diligent inquiry requirement to hold that a transferee\\nretains good faith when he was on inquiry notice and did not investigate prior\\nto accepting a transfer. In fact, three courts applying this requirement held\\nthat transferees in this position did not act in good faith. In re Christou, Nos.\\n06-68251-MHM, 06-68376-MHM, 06-68251-MHM, 2010 WL 4008191, at *3–4\\n(Bankr. N.D. Ga. Sept. 24, 2010); Walro v. Hatfield, No. 1:16-cv-3053-RLY-\\nDML, 2017 WL 2772335, at *7 (S.D. Ind. June 27, 2017); Klein v. McGraw, No.\\n2:12-cv-00102-BSJ, 2014 WL 1492970, at *2, *8 (D. Utah Apr. 15, 2014). 2 But,\\nnotwithstanding these congruent outcomes, we recognize that other states\\nhave adopted a standard that the Texas courts have yet to consider. While the\\n\\n\\n 2 Reviewing these decisions, it appears that the jury’s findings that Magness was on\\ninquiry notice but would not have uncovered the Ponzi scheme had he investigated may sit\\nin tension.\\n 10\\n\\f Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11526\\nTexas courts have interpreted TUFTA good faith, they have not discussed the\\napplicability of either the diligent inquiry requirement or the futility exception.\\nGiven that other states’ UFTA good faith defenses have taken on a standard\\nnot considered by the Texas courts, we CERTIFY the following question to the\\nSupreme Court of Texas:\\n Is the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s “good faith”\\n defense against fraudulent transfer clawbacks, as codified at Tex.\\n Bus. & Com. Code § 24.009(a), available to a transferee who had\\n inquiry notice of the fraudulent behavior, did not conduct a diligent\\n inquiry, but who would not have been reasonably able to discover\\n that fraudulent activity through diligent inquiry?\\n\\n “We disclaim any intention or desire that the Supreme Court of Texas\\nconfine its reply to the precise form or scope of the question certified.” Janvey\\nv. Golf Channel, Inc., 792 F.3d 539, 547 (5th Cir. 2015).\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n A True Copy\\n Certified May 24, 2019\\n\\n\\n Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit\\n\\n\\n\\n 11\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2063,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4623359,"string":"4,623,359"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Kevin LAMPKIN; Stephen Miller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; Joe Brown; Frank Gittess; Terry Nelson; Dianne Swiber; Robert Ferrell, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Formerly Known as UBS PaineWebber, Incorporated; UBS Securities, L.L.C., Formerly Known as UBS Warburg, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Kevin Lampkin v. UBS Painewebber, Inc., et"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-24"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-20608"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Higginbotham, Smith, Graves\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n FILED\\n May 24, 2019\\n No. 17-20608\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\n Clerk\\nKEVIN LAMPKIN; STEPHEN MILLER, individually and on behalf of all\\nothers similarly situated; JOE BROWN; FRANK GITTESS; TERRY\\nNELSON; DIANNE SWIBER; ROBERT FERRELL,\\n\\n Plaintiffs - Appellants\\n\\nv.\\n\\nUBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, formerly known as UBS\\nPainewebber, Incorporated; UBS SECURITIES, L.L.C., formerly known as\\nUBS Warburg, L.L.C.,\\n\\n Defendants - Appellees\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Texas\\n\\n\\nBefore HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.\\nPATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:\\n This is another appeal arising out of the collapse of Enron. Plaintiffs are\\nindividual retail-brokerage customers of Paine-Webber who purchased Enron\\nsecurities and Enron employees who acquired employee stock options.\\nPlaintiffs brought this action against subsidiaries of UBS, alleging violations\\nof the securities laws for their role as a broker of Enron’s employee stock option\\nplan and for failure to disclose material information about Enron’s financial\\nmanipulations to its retail investors. The case was initially consolidated into\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nthe Enron MDL until the plaintiffs elected to proceed on their own complaint.\\nAfter a lengthy stay and multiple amendments to their original pleading, the\\ndistrict court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm.\\n I.\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants bring this putative class action alleging violations\\nof the securities laws against Defendants-Appellees UBS Financial Services,\\nInc. (formerly UBS PaineWebber (“PaineWebber”)) and UBS Securities LLC\\n(formerly UBS Warburg LLC (“Warburg”)). During the relevant time period,\\nPaineWebber and Warburg were separate legal entities and subsidiaries of\\nUBS AG.\\n Plaintiffs fall into two groups: (1) individual retail-brokerage customers\\nof PaineWebber who purchased Enron securities in a PaineWebber brokerage\\naccount between November 5, 2000 and December 2, 2001 and (2) Enron\\nemployees who acquired Enron stock option securities through their\\nemployment between October 19, 1998 and November 19, 2001, which they\\nallege that PaineWebber underwrote (§ 11 claims) and sold (§ 12 claims).\\nPaineWebber provided retail brokerage services to individuals and was\\nacquired by UBS in July 2000. Warburg provided investment-banking services\\nto institutional clients.\\n Until its collapse in late 2001, Enron was the seventh largest corporation\\nin the world. Enron began as a traditional energy production and transmission\\ncompany, concentrating in natural gas pipelines, but quickly grew into an\\n“industry leader in the purchase, transportation, marketing, and sale of\\nnatural gas and electricity” and related financial instruments. Enron’s rapid\\nexpansion made it a large consumer of cash and the company considered its\\ncredit ratings critical to its success. According to the complaint, Enron began\\nto “seriously manipulate [its] financials” to conceal the negative effects of its\\naccounting practices on public financial statements. After a series of financial\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\ndisclosures and restatements events spiraled: the company’s CFO, Andrew\\nFastow, was placed on a leave of absence, the Board of Directors formed a\\nspecial committee to investigate the financial disclosures, and eventually,\\nEnron filed for bankruptcy.\\n Plaintiffs allege that UBS 1 and Enron maintained a “mutually self-\\nserving relationship that took precedence over and conflicted with the interests\\nof UBS’s retail customers.” They claim that PaineWebber provided millions of\\nretail investors to whom Enron securities could be funneled, transferring\\nEnron’s risk into the marketplace and, in return, Enron chose PaineWebber as\\nthe administrator of its Enron Employee Stock Option Plans, giving UBS the\\n“first bite at capturing Enron employee wealth to generate retail fees and\\nincome.” Enron granted stock option plans to its employees in 1991, 1994, and\\n1999. 2 Under the terms of the plans, an Enron board committee 3 had the sole\\nauthority to designate participants in the stock plan and determine the types\\nof awards to be granted to a participant, which were granted “for no cash\\nconsideration or for such minimal cash consideration as may be required by\\nlaw.” PaineWebber contracted to provide brokerage services for those plans,\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Throughout the complaint, plaintiffs refer generally to “UBS.” Plaintiffs state at the\\noutset that “P[aine]W[ebber], Warburg, and UBS AG may be collectively referred to herein\\nas ‘UBS.’” When describing allegations in the complaint, we use the language of the complaint\\nwith respect to which defendant was responsible for each alleged action. Defendants reject\\nthe notion that they can be viewed as a “joint venture” for purposes of assessing liability\\nunder the securities laws, and that argument is discussed infra, Section III.\\n 2 Defendants attached copies of the 1999 Enron Stock Plan, and the “letter agreement”\\n\\nthrough which PaineWebber agreed to provide broker financing to Enron for the execution of\\nemployee stock options, to its motion to dismiss before the district court. Those documents\\nare properly considered here. Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288\\n(5th Cir. 2004) (“Documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered\\npart of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to her\\nclaim.”).\\n 3 “Committee” is defined as “a committee of the Board of Directors of the Company\\n\\ndesignated by such Board to administer the Plan and composed of not less than two outside\\ndirectors.”\\n 3\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nagreeing to serve as the “exclusive broker for stock option exercises of all\\n[Enron’s] publicly traded securities.” While Enron granted the options,\\nPaineWebber was tasked with facilitating the option exercises and providing\\nrecord-keeping services related to the exercise of options. On the basis of those\\nallegations, plaintiffs claim violations under Sections 11 and 12 of the\\nSecurities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). 4 Plaintiffs claim that\\nPaineWebber violated the Securities Act by acting as a “seller” and\\n“underwriter” of Enron securities within the meaning of that statute, making\\nPaineWebber liable for “materially false statements contained in the Enron\\nprospectuses and registration statements” for Enron stock.\\n Plaintiffs also allege that UBS had knowledge of Enron’s “financial\\nchicanery” because of its “long standing banking history with Enron.”\\nEmphasizing that UBS is a single, integrated business venture, plaintiffs\\nallege that UBS positioned itself between its retail brokerage clients and\\nEnron, its corporate client, making it impossible for UBS to fulfill its legal\\nobligations to both groups. They claim UBS had material nonpublic\\ninformation about Enron’s financial manipulations and a duty to disclose that\\ninformation to its retail-brokerage customers. Plaintiffs highlight several\\ntransactions UBS participated in that they allege evidence UBS’s knowledge\\nof material information: (1) 1999 and 2000 amendments of equity-forward\\ncontracts, (2) participation in Osprey and Yosemite IV financial structures, and\\n(3) participation in the Enron E-Next Generation Loan. According to plaintiffs,\\nthose transactions were devices and schemes designed to inflate the\\nappearance of Enron’s financial status.\\n Equity-forward contracts were financial instruments through which\\nEnron was contractually obligated to purchase a specific number of Enron\\n\\n\\n 4 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77l.\\n 4\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nshares at a specific price from UBS and UBS had to deliver to Enron a specific\\nnumber of shares at a specific price. The complaint alleges that those\\ninstruments were, in substance, undocumented and undisclosed loans to\\nEnron to support Enron’s hedge transactions used to manage its income. It\\ndocuments two restructurings in 1999 and 2000 through which UBS increased\\nthe forward contract price, allowing Enron to extract the value from the shares\\nin the amount of the difference between the initial forward contract price and\\nthe increased market value of the shares. Plaintiffs allege that these\\nrestructurings provided Enron hedges for assets that could not be hedged as\\nwell as seed money for elicit accounting and that UBS had “institutional\\nknowledge of their fraudulent nature.”\\n With respect to its participation in the Osprey and Yosemite IV\\ntransactions, plaintiffs allege that UBS participated in a follow-on offering of\\nnotes issued in connection with Enron’s Osprey structure and purchased Enron\\ncredit-linked notes offered as part of Enron’s Yosemite IV structure. Plaintiffs\\nclaim that UBS relied on other firms’ diligence and failed to undertake its own\\ndue diligence in contravention of “relevant industry standards and UBS’s own\\ninternal policies.” By failing to conduct its own due diligence, plaintiffs claim\\nUBS acted recklessly in failing to learn that “Enron used the Osprey structure\\nto generate income by parking overvalued, non-performing assets in the\\nstructure.” Similarly, plaintiffs allege UBS either knew, or was reckless in not\\nknowing, that Enron used the Yosemite IV transactions to obtain disguised\\nloans.\\n Finally, plaintiffs allege that E-Next Generation is “the best documented\\nexample of UBS participating in a materially false public presentation of\\nEnron’s financial appearance.” They claim that UBS created an off-balance\\nsheet loan to allow Enron to finance “the construction of its US electric\\ngenerating build out and then, once the construction was complete, bring the\\n 5\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nproject onto Enron’s balance sheet” after it started generating revenues.\\nPlaintiffs allege that the existence of the loan and its structure to avoid public\\ndisclosure were material facts to investors.\\n On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs claim violations of Section\\n10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) 5 and Rule\\n10b-5 thereunder. 6 They claim UBS violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act\\nand Rule 10b-5 thereunder by failing to disclose the conflicts under which it\\noperated its brokerage business and the information and knowledge it\\npossessed during the class period concerning the manipulation of Enron’s\\npublic financial appearance. Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ acts, practices,\\nand course of business combined to operate a fraud upon the plaintiffs,\\ndeceiving them “into believing the price at which they purchased or held their\\nEnron securities was determined by the natural interplay of supply and\\ndemand.”\\n This case was initially filed in March 2002 and has a long procedural\\nhistory. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in June 2002 and, in\\nNovember of that year, this case was coordinated with a multi-district\\nlitigation under the lead case Newby v. Enron Corp. In November 2003, the\\ndistrict court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended\\ncomplaint and the case proceeded to discovery. In July 2006, the district court\\nordered all MDL plaintiffs who wanted to proceed under their own complaints\\nto give notice of that intent, which plaintiffs did, opting to “proceed under their\\nown independent complaint, as finally amended.” The operative third amended\\ncomplaint was filed the next month and defendants filed a timely motion to\\ndismiss. Shortly thereafter, this court decertified the Newby class 7 and the\\n\\n\\n 5 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b).\\n 6 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.\\n 7 Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. Credit Suisse First Bos., 482 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007).\\n\\n 6\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nSupreme Court granted certiorari on a case concerning the scope of liability\\nunder Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. 8 The district court stayed this case\\npending resolution of Stoneridge by the Supreme Court. Two years after the\\nSupreme Court’s decision came down, plaintiffs moved to lift the stay and, a\\nyear later, the district court lifted that stay. Plaintiffs moved to amend their\\ncomplaint a fourth time and the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion as\\nuntimely. In February 2017, five and a half years after the stay was lifted, the\\ndistrict court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied plaintiffs’\\nsubsequent motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed.\\n II.\\n “This court reviews de novo a district court’s grant or denial of a Rule\\n12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, ‘accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing\\nthose facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[.]’” 9 “To survive a motion\\nto dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as\\ntrue, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 10 “A claim has facial\\nplausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to\\ndraw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct\\nalleged.” 11 However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the\\nallegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions” or\\n“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere\\nconclusory statements.” 12 Where a plaintiff alleges fraud, Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)\\n“creates a heightened pleading requirement that ‘the circumstances\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008).\\n 9 True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Stokes v. Gann, 498 F.3d\\n483, 484 (5th Cir. 2007)).\\n 10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550\\n\\nU.S. 544, 570 (2007)).\\n 11 Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).\\n 12 Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).\\n\\n 7\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nconstituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.’” 13 To meet\\nthat heightened pleading standard, “the who, what, when, and where must be\\nlaid out before access to the discovery process is granted.” 14 Securities fraud\\nclaims under Section 10(b) are subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading\\nstandards. 15\\n This court reviews a district court’s decision denying a motion for leave\\nto amend for abuse of discretion. 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) governs amendments\\nto pleadings after a scheduling order has been entered by the district court 17\\nand provides that a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and\\nwith the judge’s consent.” 18\\n III.\\n Plaintiffs bring claims against PaineWebber in its capacity as “the\\nexclusive broker and stock option plan administrator for Enron,” contending\\nthat PaineWebber is liable for false statements in Enron’s prospectuses and\\nregistration statements. Under Section 11, an underwriter can be liable to a\\nperson who acquires a security where the registration statement “contained an\\nuntrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required\\nto be stated therein.” 19 Under Section 12, any person who “offers or sells a\\nsecurity,” with a prospectus or oral communication “which includes an untrue\\nstatement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order\\n\\n\\n\\n 13 United States ex rel. Rafizadeh v. Cont’l Common, Inc., 553 F.3d 869, 872 (5th Cir.\\n2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)).\\n 14 Southland Secs. Corp. v. Inspire Ins. Sols., Inc., 365 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2004)\\n\\n(quoting ABC Arbitrage Plaintiffs Grp. v. Tchuruk, 291 F.3d 336, 349 (5th Cir. 2002)).\\n 15 Id. at 3620\\n 16 Moore v. Manns, 732 F.3d 454, 456 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Wilson v. Bruks-Klockner,\\n\\nInc., 602 F.3d 363, 368 (5th Cir. 2010).\\n 17 S&W Enters., LLC v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir.\\n\\n2003).\\n 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).\\n 19 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a)(5).\\n\\n 8\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nto make such statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they\\nwere made, not misleading,” is liable to the person “purchasing such security\\nfrom him.” 20\\n The parties dispute whether the Enron employee stock option plans\\namounted to a sale of securities within the meaning of the statute. The district\\ncourt held that the stock option plans did not constitute a sale as a matter of\\nlaw because “there is no investment of money in a common enterprise with\\nprofits to come solely from the efforts of others, for which the plan participants\\nexpect a profit and . . . because Enron’s stock option plans are noncontributory\\nand compulsory for its employees.” Plaintiffs contend that the district court\\nerred by conflating employee stock ownership plans and employee stock option\\nplans. While an employee benefit plan requires a court to determine whether\\nthe beneficiary interest is a security, plaintiffs assert that the stock options\\nhere are securities under the statutory definition, meaning the Daniel test to\\ndetermine whether the interest is a security is inapplicable. Relying on the\\nsame distinction, plaintiffs maintain that the SEC’s “no-sale doctrine” for\\nemployee benefit plans does not apply to employee stock option plans.\\nPlaintiffs contend that there was a “sale” here because the grant of the Enron\\noptions was “for value”—the provision of services through employment.\\n Sections 11 and 12 expressly limit liability to “purchasers or sellers of\\nsecurities.” 21 The Securities Act defines a sale as “every contract of sale or\\ndisposition of a security or interest in a security, for value.” 22 In Daniel, the\\nSupreme Court determined that an employee’s “participation in a\\nnoncontributory, compulsory pension plan” is not the equivalent of purchasing\\n\\n\\n 20 15 U.S.C. § 77l(a)(2).\\n 21 Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 736 (1975) (“§ 11(a) of the\\n1933 Act confines the cause of action it grants to ‘any person acquiring such security’ while\\nthe remedy granted by § 12 of that Act is limited to the ‘person purchasing such security.’”).\\n 22 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(3).\\n\\n 9\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\na security. 23 To determine whether a transaction “constitutes an investment\\ncontract, ‘[t]he test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in\\na common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others.’” 24\\nThe Court noted that for the employees participating in the pension plan, the\\n“purported investment is a relatively insignificant part” of the employee’s total\\ncompensation, and the decision to accept and retain employment likely had\\nonly an attenuated relationship to the investment. 25 For that reason,\\nparticipation in the noncontributory, compulsory pension plan was unlike\\nother cases where the Court recognized “the presence of a ‘security’ under the\\nSecurities Acts”—in those cases the investor gave up a specific consideration\\nin return for a “separable financial interest with the characteristics of a\\nsecurity.” 26\\n Shortly after Daniel, the SEC issued a release to “resolve the\\nuncertainty” surrounding Daniel’s application to “many types of employee\\nbenefit plans not covered by the decision.” 27 In that release, the SEC clarified\\nthat “for the registration and antifraud provisions of the 1933 Act to be\\napplicable, there must be an offer or sale of a security.” 28 The SEC went on to\\nexplain that although “plans under which an employer awards shares of its\\nstock to covered employees at no direct cost to the employees” do award\\nsecurities, “there is no ‘sale’ in the 1933 Act sense to employees, since such\\npersons do not individually bargain to contribute cash or other tangible or\\ndefinable consideration to such plans.” 29 The following year, the SEC released\\n\\n\\n\\n 23Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551, 558 (1979) (citing SEC v.\\nW.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 300 (1946)).\\n 24 Id.\\n 25 Id. at 560.\\n 26 Id. at 559.\\n 27 SEC Release No. 33-6188, 45 F.R. 8960 (Feb. 1, 1980).\\n 28 Id. at 8962.\\n 29 Id. at 8968.\\n\\n 10\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\na second interpretive release to supplement the 1980 release and “provide\\nfurther guidance and assistance to employers and plan participants in\\ncomplying with the Act.” 30 The SEC clarified the definition of voluntary and\\ncontributory plans, noting “it is the staff’s view that the determination of\\nwhether a plan is a voluntary contributory one rests solely on whether the\\nparticipating employees can decide at some point whether or not to contribute\\ntheir own funds to the plan.” 31 In an interpretive release on Regulation D\\nexemptions, the SEC noted “[i]n a typical plan, the grant of the options will not\\nbe deemed a sale of a security for purposes of the Securities Act.” 32\\nPaineWebber also points to a number of “No Action Letters” sent by the SEC\\nthat support the conclusion that the SEC does not consider a compulsory option\\ngrant a “sale” under the Securities Act. 33\\n Consistent with the interpretations of the SEC, courts have extended\\nDaniel to compulsory and involuntary employee stock option plans. 34 “A\\n\\n\\n\\n 30 SEC Release No. 33-6281, 1981 WL 36298 (Jan. 15, 1981).\\n 31 Id. at *2.\\n 32 SEC Release No. 33-6455, 48 F.R. 10045, 10054 (March 10, 1983). Plaintiffs take\\n\\npains to minimize this statement, correctly noting that it was made in the context of defining\\nthe scope of Regulation D exemptions for an employee stock option plan for key employees.\\nId. While they are correct about the context, the statement did not explicitly limit its no-sale\\ndetermination to that narrower context. While not determinative on its own, the statement\\nfurther supports PaineWebber’s position that the compulsory option grants were not a sale\\nunder the meaning of the Securities Act.\\n 33 See e.g., Sarnoff Corp., SEC No-Action Letter, 2001 WL 811033, at *10 (July 16,\\n\\n2001) (“As discussed earlier, Sarnoff would give employees Interests or options to acquire\\nInterests at no cost, and would receive no cash, property, services, or surrender of a legal\\nright in exchange for the Interests or options (including upon exercise of the options). Rather,\\nSarnoff employees would be fully, fairly, and completely compensated for their employment\\nactivities on behalf of Sarnoff through Sarnoff's standard salary, bonuses, and similar\\ncompensation. Hence, the Program would not involve the ‘sale,’ ‘offer for sale,’ or ‘solicitation\\nof an offer to buy’ securities and no registration therefore should be required under the\\nSecurities Act.”).\\n 34 See e.g., In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 76 F. Supp. 2d 539, 544–45 (D.N.J. 1999)\\n\\n(“[C]ourts apply the SEC’s ‘no sale’ doctrine when an employee’s plan is found to be\\ncompulsory and noncontributory. This reasoning has been extended to employee stock option\\nplans.”) (internal citation omitted).\\n 11\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nhallmark of a ‘voluntary’ plan is the ability of the employee to make an\\n‘investment decision’ to acquire the stock options.” 35 The central question of\\nDaniel is “whether employees made an investment decision that could be\\ninfluenced by fraud or manipulation.” 36 Where employees’ participation is an\\n“incident of employment,” there is no bargained-for exchange that requires an\\naffirmative investment decision 37—under Daniel, the “exchange of labor” is\\ninsufficient. 38\\n Plaintiffs assert that the cases extending the no-sale doctrine to\\nemployee stock option plans are a pernicious “disease” infecting the federal\\njurisprudence—they maintain that the doctrine is limited to ERISA employee\\nbenefit plans like the employee pension plan at issue in Daniel and certain\\nemployee stock ownership plans. But as the district court correctly recognized,\\nthe grant of options to employees here was not a sale. The employees did not\\nbargain for the options and they were granted for no cash consideration.\\nPlaintiffs attempt to distinguish option grants by pointing out that the\\nemployees would be forced to make an affirmative investment decision after\\nthe grants were made—at that point, employees would decide whether to\\nexercise the option or allow it to expire unexercised. However, plaintiffs\\nexpressly disclaim reliance on the exercise of the options. Indeed they\\nrepeatedly emphasize that “[t]he Options Plaintiffs’ claims in no way depend\\nupon the exercise of a stock option to purchase the underlying stock.” Their\\nclaim is based entirely on the grant of the options—an action which required\\nno affirmative investment decision by the plaintiffs. Their theory that option\\n\\n\\n\\n 35 In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 81 F. Supp. 2d 550 (D.N.J. 2000) (internal citation\\nomitted).\\n 36 In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 855 F.3d 459, 469 (2d Cir. 2017).\\n 37 In re Cendant Corp., 76 F. Supp. 2d at 545 (quoting Childers v. Northwest Airlines,\\nInc., 688 F. Supp. 1357, 1363 (D. Minn. 1988)).\\n 38 Id. (quoting Bauman v. Bish, 571 F. Supp. 1054, 1064 (N.D.W. Va. 1983)).\\n\\n 12\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\ngrants fall outside the purview of the no-sale doctrine is contradictory: the\\naffirmative investment decision is made when the employees decide whether\\nto exercise their options, but their claims are explicitly based only on the grant\\nof the options.\\n Finding no caselaw to support their position, plaintiffs rely heavily on an\\nSEC proceeding against Google, Inc. and David Drummond, Google’s general\\ncounsel. 39 The SEC instituted cease-and-desist proceedings against Google and\\nDrummond for failing to comply with Rule 701, which provides certain\\nSecurities Act exemptions to securities issuers who are not subject to the\\nExchange Act’s reporting requirements. 40 Rule 701 is designed to “allow[]\\nprivately-held companies to compensate their employees with securities\\nwithout incurring the obligations of public registration and reporting.” 41 The\\nSEC determined that Google—a privately-held company to whom Rule 701\\napplied—and Drummond violated or caused the company to violate its\\nreporting requirements by exceeding the $5 million threshold set out by Rule\\n701. 42 Plaintiffs contend that the proceedings “confirm” that granting stock\\noptions involves a sale within the meaning of the Securities Act. Plaintiffs\\noverread those proceedings. While their interpretation is a plausible extension\\nof the Google decision, the SEC did not address the no-sale doctrine and made\\nits decision in the context of concluding which exemptions a private company\\ncould take advantage of. 43 We are not persuaded that the SEC’s decision in\\nGoogle indicates a wholesale rejection of the no-sale doctrine in the context of\\n\\n\\n\\n 39 In the Matter of Google, Inc. and David C. Drummond, SEC Admin. Proc. No. 3-\\n11795, Rel. No. 8523 (Jan. 13, 2005).\\n 40 Id. at *2; 17 C.F.R. § 230.701(b)(1).\\n 41 Id.\\n 42 Id.\\n 43 In addition to Rule 701, the SEC considered whether the Google option grants\\n\\nqualified under Section 4(2), which exempts certain private security offerings and Rule 506,\\nwhich provides an exemption for options issued to certain accredited investors. Id.\\n 13\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nemployee option grants. Finally, even if the Google decision did represent a\\nchange in the SEC’s stance—and we conclude it does not—plaintiffs fail to\\nshow how that 2005 decision could be applied retroactively to PaineWebber’s\\nactions between 1998 and 2001. 44\\n At base, plaintiffs Securities Act claims fail because their participation\\nin the Employee Stock Option Plan was compulsory and employees furnished\\nno value, or tangible and definable consideration in exchange for the option\\ngrants. The Court in Daniel rejected the idea that the exchange of labor was\\nsufficient consideration in the context of a compulsory, non-contributory\\npension plan—the same logic applies to the option plan at issue here. 45\\nPlaintiffs made no investment decision in the grant of the options, the Enron\\nplans were compulsory and non-contributory. The fact that plaintiffs would\\neventually make an affirmative investment decision—whether to exercise the\\noption or let it expire—at some point in the future is of no consequence.\\nPlaintiffs’ claims are based explicitly on the grant of the option, not the exercise\\nof that option. Because plaintiffs have not overcome the most fundamental\\nhurdle to their Securities Act claims, we need not consider UBS’s alternative\\narguments that (1) PaineWebber was not an underwriter or seller; (2) plaintiffs\\nfailed to allege that any false prospectus or registration statement covered the\\nEnron options; and (3) that plaintiffs failed to plead damages. Plaintiffs’\\nSecurities Act claims require a sale—plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that\\nthe grant of Enron options amounted to the sale of a security. For those\\nreasons, the district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs’ Section 11 and Section\\n12 claims.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 44 Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988) (“[A]dministrative rules\\nwill not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.”).\\n 45 Daniel, 439 U.S. at 569.\\n\\n 14\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\n IV.\\n In their second set of claims, the retail-brokerage customer plaintiffs\\ncontend that UBS violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5\\nthereunder by failing to disclose information and knowledge regarding “the\\nmanipulation of Enron’s public financial appearance” in the face of a duty to\\ndo so. To state a claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange\\nAct, a plaintiff must adequately allege “(1) a material misrepresentation (or\\nomission); (2) scienter, i.e., a wrongful state of mind; (3) a connection with the\\npurchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance . . .; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss\\ncausation, i.e., a causal connection between the material misrepresentation\\nand the loss.” 46 Plaintiffs’ claims are based on UBS’s alleged silence in violation\\nof a duty to disclose. The crux of plaintiffs’ claim is that PaineWebber and\\nWarburg united in a joint venture named UBS, that that joint venture owed a\\nduty to its retail brokerage clients stemming from the security industry’s self-\\nregulatory organization rules and UBS’s “special relationship” with plaintiffs,\\nand that UBS failed to disclose information that “Enron manipulated and\\nmaterially misstated its financial results to the public.”\\n The district court concluded that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts\\nto support a plausible claim that Warburg and PaineWebber functioned as a\\nsingle entity, did not establish that defendants acted with scienter, and did not\\nestablish that Warburg or UBS AG, which were not parties to the contract\\nbetween Enron and PaineWebber, owed a duty to plaintiffs. Essentially, the\\ndistrict court determined that plaintiffs had not shown that Warburg owed a\\nduty to disclose information it possessed to clients of PaineWebber by virtue of\\nany “joint venture” between Warburg and PaineWebber and, in fact, that\\n\\n\\n\\n 46 Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341–42 (2005) (internal\\ncitations omitted).\\n 15\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nWarburg could not share information with PaineWebber because of “federally\\nrequired Chinese Walls” between PaineWebber and Warburg, in its capacity\\nas an investment bank.\\n After the parties submitted their briefing in this case, another panel of\\nthis court issued an unpublished decision in a related case, affirming the same\\ndistrict court’s dismissal of similar Exchange Act claims brought by\\nPaineWebber customers who had bought Enron bonds or other debt\\ninstruments. 47 In their response to defendants’ 28(j) letter, plaintiffs attempt\\nto distinguish Giancarlo by stating that the panel “simply found the [appellate]\\nbriefing submitted by the Giancarlo plaintiffs’ insufficient to demonstrate a §\\n10(b) claim” and based its decision on those deficiencies rather than “perceived\\ndeficiencies in their pleading in the trial court.” 48 Plaintiffs assert that the\\npanel’s decision “is not a decision on the merits of the § 10(b) claim asserted by\\nthe Plaintiffs in the Lampkin case.” 49 That characterization is inconsistent\\nwith the panel opinion, which held that plaintiffs had not adequately\\nestablished the existence of a joint venture, nor put forth any other theory that\\npermitted aggregation of the actions and knowledge of the defendant entities, 50\\nand had failed to establish that any one defendant had material non-public\\nknowledge and a duty to disclose that knowledge to the plaintiffs. 51 The panel\\nconcluded, therefore, that “the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 47 Giancarlo v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 725 F. App’x 278 (5th Cir. 2018) (unpublished),\\ncert denied, 139 S. Ct. 199 (2018). As defendants note in their 28(j) letter to this court,\\nGiancarlo was litigated in parallel with the instant action by the same counsel before the\\nsame district court. See Feb. 28, 2018 28(j) Letter.\\n 48 March 6, 2018 Response to 28(j) Letter.\\n 49 Id.\\n 50 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 284.\\n 51 Id. at 286.\\n\\n 16\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\namended complaint.” 52 Although we are not bound by an unpublished decision,\\nwe find the reasoning in Giancarlo persuasive and adopt it here.\\n First, plaintiffs contend that they adequately alleged that PaineWebber\\nand Warburg united to form a joint venture named UBS. Plaintiffs urge that\\nbecause PaineWebber and Warburg were incorporated under Delaware law,\\nthe court looks to the Delaware standard for establishing that a joint venture\\nexists: where there is (1) a community of interest in the performance of a\\ncommon purpose, (2) joint control or right of control, (3) a joint proprietary\\ninterest in the subject matter, (4) a right to share in the profits, (5) a duty to\\nshare in the losses which must be sustained. 53 Plaintiffs point to allegations\\nthat UBS made public admissions in media releases describing itself as an\\n“integrated” bank and predicted in a press release after PaineWebber’s\\nacquisition that PaineWebber would become “an integral part of UBS\\nWarburg.” However, like the plaintiffs in Giancarlo, plaintiffs here do not\\nexplain how the allegations they point to support a finding that defendants\\nshared profits or losses or establish that defendants had joint control or right\\nof control over the joint venture. 54 The press releases described by plaintiffs\\nsupport a shared interest but are insufficient to support joint venture liability\\nunder Delaware law—as this court in Giancarlo emphasized, “vague corporate\\nplatitudes about integration as a firm” are insufficient to support a finding of\\njoint venture liability. 55 Beyond plaintiffs’ conclusory statements that UBS\\n\\n\\n\\n 52 Id.\\n 53 Warren v. Goldinger Bros., Inc., 414 A.2d 507, 509 (Del. 1980) (quoting Kilgore Seed\\nCo. v. Lewin, 141 So. 2d 809, 810–11 (Fla. App. 1962)).\\n 54 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 283–84 (“None of the allegations allude to profit sharing,\\n\\nor loss sharing.”) (citing N.S.N. Int’l Indus., N.V. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., C.A., No.\\n12902, 1994 WL 148271 (Del. Ch. Mar. 31, 1994) (finding no joint venture where agreement\\nbetween parties did not contemplate loss sharing)).\\n 55 Id. (citing Warren, 414 A.2d at 509); see also Janus Cap. Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative\\n\\nTraders, 564 U.S. 135, 145–46 (2011) (“declin[ing] th[e] invitation to disregard the corporate\\n 17\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nwas a single, integrated entity, plaintiffs have not established the existence of\\na joint venture and, as in Giancarlo, “have not put forth any other theory that\\npermits us to aggregate the actions and knowledge of the defendant entities\\nfor purposes of assessing liability.” 56\\n With respect to duty, plaintiffs contend that defendants had knowledge\\nof material nonpublic information concerning Enron and that they owed a duty\\nto disclose that information. Plaintiffs assert that a duty to disclose arose\\nthrough UBS’s retail brokerage relationship with plaintiffs and through UBS’s\\n“special relationship” as a entity between its retail client and its issuer client.\\nBecause, as we discussed, plaintiffs have not adequately pled that Warburg\\nand PaineWebber formed a joint venture, they must demonstrate that the\\nentity that possessed the material, nonpublic information—according to\\nplaintiffs allegations, Warburg or UBS AG—had the duty to disclose that\\ninformation. 57\\n Plaintiffs emphasize that a duty to disclose can arise without the\\nexistence of a fiduciary duty, and point to two sources of the alleged duty here.\\nFirst, they contend that the security industry’s self-regulation rules give rise\\nto actionable duties under the Exchange Act. According to plaintiffs, the\\nintegration of a retail brokerage business (PaineWebber) into the joint venture\\nbrought with it duties placed on broker-dealers by the rules of two self-\\nregulatory organizations (“SROs”), the NASD and NYSE. Plaintiffs claim that\\nthe NASD and NYSE “establish obligatory standards” and “obligated UBS to\\n\\n\\n\\nform” where it was “undisputed that the corporate formalities were observed” and entities\\nremained legally separate).\\n 56 Id. at 284.\\n 57 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 284 (“Moreover, even a searching review of the relevant\\n\\ndocuments supports, at most, that Warburg and UBS AG had some insider knowledge of\\nEnron’s financial situation, as those are the defendants that participated in the transactions\\nidentified by Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs must show that Warburg or UBS AG owed them a\\nduty of disclosure.”).\\n 18\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nspeak.” Plaintiffs’ complaint cites to NASD Rule 2210(d) which governs “[a]ll\\nmember communications with the public” and mandates that “[n]o material\\nfact or qualification may be omitted if the omission . . . would cause the\\ncommunications to be misleading.” This theory of duty falls with plaintiffs’\\ntheory of joint venture liability. The SRO rules depend on a communication—\\nbut as in Giancarlo, PaineWebber was the entity that communicated with the\\nretail brokerage customer plaintiffs but plaintiffs fail to allege that\\nPaineWebber had knowledge of Enron’s financial misrepresentations. 58 The\\ndefendant with the duty was not the defendant with the knowledge. Simply\\nlabeling the offending entity “UBS” does not rescue plaintiffs from this fatal\\nflaw.\\n Plaintiffs also point to a second source of defendants’ alleged duty, the\\nalleged “special relationship” between UBS and plaintiffs. Essentially,\\nplaintiffs claim that UBS stood between Enron and its retail brokerage\\ncustomers and that special relationship obligated its disclosure about Enron’s\\nfinancial manipulations. In support of this alleged duty, plaintiffs rely on\\nAffiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States. 59 In Affiliated Ute, a bank that\\nwas acting as a transfer agent for Ute tribe members bought the plaintiffs’\\nrestricted stock without disclosing that they had created a secondary market\\nfor the stock where they could sell it for a profit. 60 The Court held that the\\n“sellers had the right to know that the defendants were in a position to gain\\nfinancially from their sales and that their shares were selling for a higher price\\n\\n\\n\\n 58 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 285 (“The only defendant alleged to have ‘communicated’\\nwith Plaintiffs is PaineWebber, and Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that any person\\nat PaineWebber had knowledge concerning Enron’s financial manipulations. Thus, even if\\nwe accepted Plaintiffs’ invitation to hold that NASD rules can impose a duty of disclosure for\\npurposes of § 10(b) liability, Plaintiffs have not shown that any defendant violated such\\nrules.”) (internal citations omitted).\\n 59 406 U.S. 128 (1972).\\n 60 Affiliated Ute, 406 U.S. at 152–53.\\n\\n 19\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nin that market.” 61 Plaintiffs have not alleged an analogous relationship\\nbetween themselves and the entity that sold them securities, PaineWebber.\\nFurthermore, plaintiffs do not suggest that PaineWebber was the entity that\\nhad knowledge of the Enron securities market. 62 PaineWebber was the broker\\nfor the retail-brokerage customers while UBS AG and Warburg were the\\nentities that played a role in the particular transactions identified in the\\ncomplaint purporting to evidence the material knowledge of Enron’s financial\\nmanipulations—again, plaintiffs’ use of the grouping “UBS” does not cure the\\nfact of those entities’ separate legal statuses.\\n Plaintiffs fundamentally fail to establish that either defendant had\\nmaterial, nonpublic knowledge to disclose and a duty to disclose. They attempt\\nto circumvent this requirement by arguing that UBS operated as a “single,\\nfully integrated entity,” meaning that any material, nonpublic information\\nknown to UBS AG or Warburg had to be disclosed by PaineWebber. Because\\nthey have not adequately pled that defendants formed a joint venture, the lack\\nof particularized allegations that any defendant entity possessed material\\ninformation about Enron’s finances and a duty of disclosure are fatal to their\\nclaim. 63\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 61 Id. at 153.\\n 62 See e.g., Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 286 (“Documents attached to the pleadings\\ndiscuss the role of ‘UBS Warburg AG’ in several transactions and indicate that that ‘UBS\\nWarburg’ was the ‘joint lead manager of Credit Linked Notes for Enron.’ Plaintiffs specify\\nthat their brokers were employees of PaineWebber. Plaintiffs do not argue that PaineWebber\\nhad any special knowledge of the market for Enron debt securities, and UBS AG’s and\\nWarburg’s dealings with Enron cannot support that PaineWebber had a duty of disclosure.”).\\n 63 Id. at 284 (citing Fin. Acquisition Partners LP v. Blackwell, 440 F.3d 278, 289 (5th\\n\\nCir. 2006)).\\n 20\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\n V.\\n Plaintiffs contend that, even if their third amended complaint was\\nproperly dismissed by the district court, the court abused its discretion in\\ndenying them the opportunity to file an amended complaint.\\n While Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that leave to amend shall be “freely”\\ngiven, 64 where a plaintiff seeks to amend its complaint after a scheduling order\\nhas been entered, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) governs. 65 Under that rule, a scheduling\\norder “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 66\\nThe court must consider four factors in determining whether there was good\\ncause for the delay: (1) the explanation for the failure to timely move for leave\\nto amend, (2) the importance of the amendment, (3) the potential prejudice the\\nother party would suffer if the amendment was allowed, and (4) the availability\\nof a continuance to cure that prejudice. 67\\n Plaintiffs explain their failure to seek timely amendment, pointing to\\ndepositions of Enron’s former CFO and UBS’s expert, which were taken after\\nthe amendment deadline, and UBS’s “unforeseeable denial” of facts admitted\\nto in its SEC filings. As this court recognized in Giancarlo, which proceeded\\nunder a similar schedule, Enron’s CFO was deposed eight months before this\\naction was stayed, during which time plaintiffs failed to seek to amend their\\ncomplaint. 68 Plaintiffs waited a full two years after Stoneridge was decided\\nbefore moving to lift the stay. Plaintiffs’ suggestion that they could not have\\npredicted that defendants would argue that Warburg and PaineWebber are\\nseparate legal entities is implausible given the reference to different entities\\n\\n\\n\\n 64 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).\\n 65 S&W Enters., 315 F.3d at 535.\\n 66 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).\\n 67 S&W Enters., 315 F.3d at 536 (citing Reliance Ins. Co. v. La. Land & Exploration\\n\\nCo., 110 F.3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1997)).\\n 68 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 287–88.\\n\\n 21\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nin different allegations of the operative complaint. Plaintiffs also submit that\\nthe proposed amendment was “clearly” important given the dismissal in the\\ncase. Again, as in Giancarlo, that conclusory statement does not tell this court\\nwhich new allegations would cure the deficiencies highlighted by the district\\ncourt. 69 Specifically, plaintiffs have not made clear how their revised\\nallegations would support their theory that PaineWebber and Warburg\\nparticipated in a joint venture. Even taking plaintiffs at their word that\\ndefendants would not have been overly prejudiced by the proposed\\namendment, the first two factors in the analysis are determinative here. The\\ndistrict court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant leave to amend.\\n VI.\\n Because plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Securities Act or the\\nExchange Act and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying\\nplaintiffs an additional chance to amend their complaint, we affirm the district\\ncourt’s dismissal.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 69 Id. at 288.\\n 22\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4400612/\", \"author_raw\": \"PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"HIGGINBOTHAM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SMITH"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"GRAVES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623359/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Kevin LAMPKIN; Stephen Miller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; Joe Brown; Frank Gittess; Terry Nelson; Dianne Swiber; Robert Ferrell, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Formerly Known as UBS PaineWebber, Incorporated; UBS Securities, L.L.C., Formerly Known as UBS Warburg, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-24\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nCase: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals\n Fifth Circuit\n\n FILED\n May 24, 2019\n No. 17-20608\n Lyle W. Cayce\n Clerk\nKEVIN LAMPKIN; STEPHEN MILLER, individually and on behalf of all\nothers similarly situated; JOE BROWN; FRANK GITTESS; TERRY\nNELSON; DIANNE SWIBER; ROBERT FERRELL,\n\n Plaintiffs - Appellants\n\nv.\n\nUBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, formerly known as UBS\nPainewebber, Incorporated; UBS SECURITIES, L.L.C., formerly known as\nUBS Warburg, L.L.C.,\n\n Defendants - Appellees\n\n\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Southern District of Texas\n\n\nBefore HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.\nPATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:\n This is another appeal arising out of the collapse of Enron. Plaintiffs are\nindividual retail-brokerage customers of Paine-Webber who purchased Enron\nsecurities and Enron employees who acquired employee stock options.\nPlaintiffs brought this action against subsidiaries of UBS, alleging violations\nof the securities laws for their role as a broker of Enron’s employee stock option\nplan and for failure to disclose material information about Enron’s financial\nmanipulations to its retail investors. The case was initially consolidated into\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nthe Enron MDL until the plaintiffs elected to proceed on their own complaint.\nAfter a lengthy stay and multiple amendments to their original pleading, the\ndistrict court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm.\n I.\n Plaintiffs-Appellants bring this putative class action alleging violations\nof the securities laws against Defendants-Appellees UBS Financial Services,\nInc. (formerly UBS PaineWebber (“PaineWebber”)) and UBS Securities LLC\n(formerly UBS Warburg LLC (“Warburg”)). During the relevant time period,\nPaineWebber and Warburg were separate legal entities and subsidiaries of\nUBS AG.\n Plaintiffs fall into two groups: (1) individual retail-brokerage customers\nof PaineWebber who purchased Enron securities in a PaineWebber brokerage\naccount between November 5, 2000 and December 2, 2001 and (2) Enron\nemployees who acquired Enron stock option securities through their\nemployment between October 19, 1998 and November 19, 2001, which they\nallege that PaineWebber underwrote (§ 11 claims) and sold (§ 12 claims).\nPaineWebber provided retail brokerage services to individuals and was\nacquired by UBS in July 2000. Warburg provided investment-banking services\nto institutional clients.\n Until its collapse in late 2001, Enron was the seventh largest corporation\nin the world. Enron began as a traditional energy production and transmission\ncompany, concentrating in natural gas pipelines, but quickly grew into an\n“industry leader in the purchase, transportation, marketing, and sale of\nnatural gas and electricity” and related financial instruments. Enron’s rapid\nexpansion made it a large consumer of cash and the company considered its\ncredit ratings critical to its success. According to the complaint, Enron began\nto “seriously manipulate [its] financials” to conceal the negative effects of its\naccounting practices on public financial statements. After a series of financial\n 2\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\ndisclosures and restatements events spiraled: the company’s CFO, Andrew\nFastow, was placed on a leave of absence, the Board of Directors formed a\nspecial committee to investigate the financial disclosures, and eventually,\nEnron filed for bankruptcy.\n Plaintiffs allege that UBS 1 and Enron maintained a “mutually self-\nserving relationship that took precedence over and conflicted with the interests\nof UBS’s retail customers.” They claim that PaineWebber provided millions of\nretail investors to whom Enron securities could be funneled, transferring\nEnron’s risk into the marketplace and, in return, Enron chose PaineWebber as\nthe administrator of its Enron Employee Stock Option Plans, giving UBS the\n“first bite at capturing Enron employee wealth to generate retail fees and\nincome.” Enron granted stock option plans to its employees in 1991, 1994, and\n1999. 2 Under the terms of the plans, an Enron board committee 3 had the sole\nauthority to designate participants in the stock plan and determine the types\nof awards to be granted to a participant, which were granted “for no cash\nconsideration or for such minimal cash consideration as may be required by\nlaw.” PaineWebber contracted to provide brokerage services for those plans,\n\n\n\n 1 Throughout the complaint, plaintiffs refer generally to “UBS.” Plaintiffs state at the\noutset that “P[aine]W[ebber], Warburg, and UBS AG may be collectively referred to herein\nas ‘UBS.’” When describing allegations in the complaint, we use the language of the complaint\nwith respect to which defendant was responsible for each alleged action. Defendants reject\nthe notion that they can be viewed as a “joint venture” for purposes of assessing liability\nunder the securities laws, and that argument is discussed infra, Section III.\n 2 Defendants attached copies of the 1999 Enron Stock Plan, and the “letter agreement”\n\nthrough which PaineWebber agreed to provide broker financing to Enron for the execution of\nemployee stock options, to its motion to dismiss before the district court. Those documents\nare properly considered here. Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288\n(5th Cir. 2004) (“Documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered\npart of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to her\nclaim.”).\n 3 “Committee” is defined as “a committee of the Board of Directors of the Company\n\ndesignated by such Board to administer the Plan and composed of not less than two outside\ndirectors.”\n 3\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nagreeing to serve as the “exclusive broker for stock option exercises of all\n[Enron’s] publicly traded securities.” While Enron granted the options,\nPaineWebber was tasked with facilitating the option exercises and providing\nrecord-keeping services related to the exercise of options. On the basis of those\nallegations, plaintiffs claim violations under Sections 11 and 12 of the\nSecurities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). 4 Plaintiffs claim that\nPaineWebber violated the Securities Act by acting as a “seller” and\n“underwriter” of Enron securities within the meaning of that statute, making\nPaineWebber liable for “materially false statements contained in the Enron\nprospectuses and registration statements” for Enron stock.\n Plaintiffs also allege that UBS had knowledge of Enron’s “financial\nchicanery” because of its “long standing banking history with Enron.”\nEmphasizing that UBS is a single, integrated business venture, plaintiffs\nallege that UBS positioned itself between its retail brokerage clients and\nEnron, its corporate client, making it impossible for UBS to fulfill its legal\nobligations to both groups. They claim UBS had material nonpublic\ninformation about Enron’s financial manipulations and a duty to disclose that\ninformation to its retail-brokerage customers. Plaintiffs highlight several\ntransactions UBS participated in that they allege evidence UBS’s knowledge\nof material information: (1) 1999 and 2000 amendments of equity-forward\ncontracts, (2) participation in Osprey and Yosemite IV financial structures, and\n(3) participation in the Enron E-Next Generation Loan. According to plaintiffs,\nthose transactions were devices and schemes designed to inflate the\nappearance of Enron’s financial status.\n Equity-forward contracts were financial instruments through which\nEnron was contractually obligated to purchase a specific number of Enron\n\n\n 4 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77l.\n 4\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nshares at a specific price from UBS and UBS had to deliver to Enron a specific\nnumber of shares at a specific price. The complaint alleges that those\ninstruments were, in substance, undocumented and undisclosed loans to\nEnron to support Enron’s hedge transactions used to manage its income. It\ndocuments two restructurings in 1999 and 2000 through which UBS increased\nthe forward contract price, allowing Enron to extract the value from the shares\nin the amount of the difference between the initial forward contract price and\nthe increased market value of the shares. Plaintiffs allege that these\nrestructurings provided Enron hedges for assets that could not be hedged as\nwell as seed money for elicit accounting and that UBS had “institutional\nknowledge of their fraudulent nature.”\n With respect to its participation in the Osprey and Yosemite IV\ntransactions, plaintiffs allege that UBS participated in a follow-on offering of\nnotes issued in connection with Enron’s Osprey structure and purchased Enron\ncredit-linked notes offered as part of Enron’s Yosemite IV structure. Plaintiffs\nclaim that UBS relied on other firms’ diligence and failed to undertake its own\ndue diligence in contravention of “relevant industry standards and UBS’s own\ninternal policies.” By failing to conduct its own due diligence, plaintiffs claim\nUBS acted recklessly in failing to learn that “Enron used the Osprey structure\nto generate income by parking overvalued, non-performing assets in the\nstructure.” Similarly, plaintiffs allege UBS either knew, or was reckless in not\nknowing, that Enron used the Yosemite IV transactions to obtain disguised\nloans.\n Finally, plaintiffs allege that E-Next Generation is “the best documented\nexample of UBS participating in a materially false public presentation of\nEnron’s financial appearance.” They claim that UBS created an off-balance\nsheet loan to allow Enron to finance “the construction of its US electric\ngenerating build out and then, once the construction was complete, bring the\n 5\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nproject onto Enron’s balance sheet” after it started generating revenues.\nPlaintiffs allege that the existence of the loan and its structure to avoid public\ndisclosure were material facts to investors.\n On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs claim violations of Section\n10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) 5 and Rule\n10b-5 thereunder. 6 They claim UBS violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act\nand Rule 10b-5 thereunder by failing to disclose the conflicts under which it\noperated its brokerage business and the information and knowledge it\npossessed during the class period concerning the manipulation of Enron’s\npublic financial appearance. Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ acts, practices,\nand course of business combined to operate a fraud upon the plaintiffs,\ndeceiving them “into believing the price at which they purchased or held their\nEnron securities was determined by the natural interplay of supply and\ndemand.”\n This case was initially filed in March 2002 and has a long procedural\nhistory. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in June 2002 and, in\nNovember of that year, this case was coordinated with a multi-district\nlitigation under the lead case Newby v. Enron Corp. In November 2003, the\ndistrict court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended\ncomplaint and the case proceeded to discovery. In July 2006, the district court\nordered all MDL plaintiffs who wanted to proceed under their own complaints\nto give notice of that intent, which plaintiffs did, opting to “proceed under their\nown independent complaint, as finally amended.” The operative third amended\ncomplaint was filed the next month and defendants filed a timely motion to\ndismiss. Shortly thereafter, this court decertified the Newby class 7 and the\n\n\n 5 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b).\n 6 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.\n 7 Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. Credit Suisse First Bos., 482 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007).\n\n 6\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nSupreme Court granted certiorari on a case concerning the scope of liability\nunder Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. 8 The district court stayed this case\npending resolution of Stoneridge by the Supreme Court. Two years after the\nSupreme Court’s decision came down, plaintiffs moved to lift the stay and, a\nyear later, the district court lifted that stay. Plaintiffs moved to amend their\ncomplaint a fourth time and the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion as\nuntimely. In February 2017, five and a half years after the stay was lifted, the\ndistrict court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied plaintiffs’\nsubsequent motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed.\n II.\n “This court reviews de novo a district court’s grant or denial of a Rule\n12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, ‘accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing\nthose facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[.]’” 9 “To survive a motion\nto dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as\ntrue, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 10 “A claim has facial\nplausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to\ndraw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct\nalleged.” 11 However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the\nallegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions” or\n“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere\nconclusory statements.” 12 Where a plaintiff alleges fraud, Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)\n“creates a heightened pleading requirement that ‘the circumstances\n\n\n\n\n 8 Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008).\n 9 True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Stokes v. Gann, 498 F.3d\n483, 484 (5th Cir. 2007)).\n 10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550\n\nU.S. 544, 570 (2007)).\n 11 Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).\n 12 Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).\n\n 7\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nconstituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.’” 13 To meet\nthat heightened pleading standard, “the who, what, when, and where must be\nlaid out before access to the discovery process is granted.” 14 Securities fraud\nclaims under Section 10(b) are subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading\nstandards. 15\n This court reviews a district court’s decision denying a motion for leave\nto amend for abuse of discretion. 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) governs amendments\nto pleadings after a scheduling order has been entered by the district court 17\nand provides that a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and\nwith the judge’s consent.” 18\n III.\n Plaintiffs bring claims against PaineWebber in its capacity as “the\nexclusive broker and stock option plan administrator for Enron,” contending\nthat PaineWebber is liable for false statements in Enron’s prospectuses and\nregistration statements. Under Section 11, an underwriter can be liable to a\nperson who acquires a security where the registration statement “contained an\nuntrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required\nto be stated therein.” 19 Under Section 12, any person who “offers or sells a\nsecurity,” with a prospectus or oral communication “which includes an untrue\nstatement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order\n\n\n\n 13 United States ex rel. Rafizadeh v. Cont’l Common, Inc., 553 F.3d 869, 872 (5th Cir.\n2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)).\n 14 Southland Secs. Corp. v. Inspire Ins. Sols., Inc., 365 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2004)\n\n(quoting ABC Arbitrage Plaintiffs Grp. v. Tchuruk, 291 F.3d 336, 349 (5th Cir. 2002)).\n 15 Id. at 3620\n 16 Moore v. Manns, 732 F.3d 454, 456 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Wilson v. Bruks-Klockner,\n\nInc., 602 F.3d 363, 368 (5th Cir. 2010).\n 17 S&W Enters., LLC v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir.\n\n2003).\n 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).\n 19 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a)(5).\n\n 8\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nto make such statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they\nwere made, not misleading,” is liable to the person “purchasing such security\nfrom him.” 20\n The parties dispute whether the Enron employee stock option plans\namounted to a sale of securities within the meaning of the statute. The district\ncourt held that the stock option plans did not constitute a sale as a matter of\nlaw because “there is no investment of money in a common enterprise with\nprofits to come solely from the efforts of others, for which the plan participants\nexpect a profit and . . . because Enron’s stock option plans are noncontributory\nand compulsory for its employees.” Plaintiffs contend that the district court\nerred by conflating employee stock ownership plans and employee stock option\nplans. While an employee benefit plan requires a court to determine whether\nthe beneficiary interest is a security, plaintiffs assert that the stock options\nhere are securities under the statutory definition, meaning the Daniel test to\ndetermine whether the interest is a security is inapplicable. Relying on the\nsame distinction, plaintiffs maintain that the SEC’s “no-sale doctrine” for\nemployee benefit plans does not apply to employee stock option plans.\nPlaintiffs contend that there was a “sale” here because the grant of the Enron\noptions was “for value”—the provision of services through employment.\n Sections 11 and 12 expressly limit liability to “purchasers or sellers of\nsecurities.” 21 The Securities Act defines a sale as “every contract of sale or\ndisposition of a security or interest in a security, for value.” 22 In Daniel, the\nSupreme Court determined that an employee’s “participation in a\nnoncontributory, compulsory pension plan” is not the equivalent of purchasing\n\n\n 20 15 U.S.C. § 77l(a)(2).\n 21 Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 736 (1975) (“§ 11(a) of the\n1933 Act confines the cause of action it grants to ‘any person acquiring such security’ while\nthe remedy granted by § 12 of that Act is limited to the ‘person purchasing such security.’”).\n 22 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(3).\n\n 9\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\na security. 23 To determine whether a transaction “constitutes an investment\ncontract, ‘[t]he test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in\na common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others.’” 24\nThe Court noted that for the employees participating in the pension plan, the\n“purported investment is a relatively insignificant part” of the employee’s total\ncompensation, and the decision to accept and retain employment likely had\nonly an attenuated relationship to the investment. 25 For that reason,\nparticipation in the noncontributory, compulsory pension plan was unlike\nother cases where the Court recognized “the presence of a ‘security’ under the\nSecurities Acts”—in those cases the investor gave up a specific consideration\nin return for a “separable financial interest with the characteristics of a\nsecurity.” 26\n Shortly after Daniel, the SEC issued a release to “resolve the\nuncertainty” surrounding Daniel’s application to “many types of employee\nbenefit plans not covered by the decision.” 27 In that release, the SEC clarified\nthat “for the registration and antifraud provisions of the 1933 Act to be\napplicable, there must be an offer or sale of a security.” 28 The SEC went on to\nexplain that although “plans under which an employer awards shares of its\nstock to covered employees at no direct cost to the employees” do award\nsecurities, “there is no ‘sale’ in the 1933 Act sense to employees, since such\npersons do not individually bargain to contribute cash or other tangible or\ndefinable consideration to such plans.” 29 The following year, the SEC released\n\n\n\n 23Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551, 558 (1979) (citing SEC v.\nW.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 300 (1946)).\n 24 Id.\n 25 Id. at 560.\n 26 Id. at 559.\n 27 SEC Release No. 33-6188, 45 F.R. 8960 (Feb. 1, 1980).\n 28 Id. at 8962.\n 29 Id. at 8968.\n\n 10\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\na second interpretive release to supplement the 1980 release and “provide\nfurther guidance and assistance to employers and plan participants in\ncomplying with the Act.” 30 The SEC clarified the definition of voluntary and\ncontributory plans, noting “it is the staff’s view that the determination of\nwhether a plan is a voluntary contributory one rests solely on whether the\nparticipating employees can decide at some point whether or not to contribute\ntheir own funds to the plan.” 31 In an interpretive release on Regulation D\nexemptions, the SEC noted “[i]n a typical plan, the grant of the options will not\nbe deemed a sale of a security for purposes of the Securities Act.” 32\nPaineWebber also points to a number of “No Action Letters” sent by the SEC\nthat support the conclusion that the SEC does not consider a compulsory option\ngrant a “sale” under the Securities Act. 33\n Consistent with the interpretations of the SEC, courts have extended\nDaniel to compulsory and involuntary employee stock option plans. 34 “A\n\n\n\n 30 SEC Release No. 33-6281, 1981 WL 36298 (Jan. 15, 1981).\n 31 Id. at *2.\n 32 SEC Release No. 33-6455, 48 F.R. 10045, 10054 (March 10, 1983). Plaintiffs take\n\npains to minimize this statement, correctly noting that it was made in the context of defining\nthe scope of Regulation D exemptions for an employee stock option plan for key employees.\nId. While they are correct about the context, the statement did not explicitly limit its no-sale\ndetermination to that narrower context. While not determinative on its own, the statement\nfurther supports PaineWebber’s position that the compulsory option grants were not a sale\nunder the meaning of the Securities Act.\n 33 See e.g., Sarnoff Corp., SEC No-Action Letter, 2001 WL 811033, at *10 (July 16,\n\n2001) (“As discussed earlier, Sarnoff would give employees Interests or options to acquire\nInterests at no cost, and would receive no cash, property, services, or surrender of a legal\nright in exchange for the Interests or options (including upon exercise of the options). Rather,\nSarnoff employees would be fully, fairly, and completely compensated for their employment\nactivities on behalf of Sarnoff through Sarnoff's standard salary, bonuses, and similar\ncompensation. Hence, the Program would not involve the ‘sale,’ ‘offer for sale,’ or ‘solicitation\nof an offer to buy’ securities and no registration therefore should be required under the\nSecurities Act.”).\n 34 See e.g., In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 76 F. Supp. 2d 539, 544–45 (D.N.J. 1999)\n\n(“[C]ourts apply the SEC’s ‘no sale’ doctrine when an employee’s plan is found to be\ncompulsory and noncontributory. This reasoning has been extended to employee stock option\nplans.”) (internal citation omitted).\n 11\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nhallmark of a ‘voluntary’ plan is the ability of the employee to make an\n‘investment decision’ to acquire the stock options.” 35 The central question of\nDaniel is “whether employees made an investment decision that could be\ninfluenced by fraud or manipulation.” 36 Where employees’ participation is an\n“incident of employment,” there is no bargained-for exchange that requires an\naffirmative investment decision 37—under Daniel, the “exchange of labor” is\ninsufficient. 38\n Plaintiffs assert that the cases extending the no-sale doctrine to\nemployee stock option plans are a pernicious “disease” infecting the federal\njurisprudence—they maintain that the doctrine is limited to ERISA employee\nbenefit plans like the employee pension plan at issue in Daniel and certain\nemployee stock ownership plans. But as the district court correctly recognized,\nthe grant of options to employees here was not a sale. The employees did not\nbargain for the options and they were granted for no cash consideration.\nPlaintiffs attempt to distinguish option grants by pointing out that the\nemployees would be forced to make an affirmative investment decision after\nthe grants were made—at that point, employees would decide whether to\nexercise the option or allow it to expire unexercised. However, plaintiffs\nexpressly disclaim reliance on the exercise of the options. Indeed they\nrepeatedly emphasize that “[t]he Options Plaintiffs’ claims in no way depend\nupon the exercise of a stock option to purchase the underlying stock.” Their\nclaim is based entirely on the grant of the options—an action which required\nno affirmative investment decision by the plaintiffs. Their theory that option\n\n\n\n 35 In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 81 F. Supp. 2d 550 (D.N.J. 2000) (internal citation\nomitted).\n 36 In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 855 F.3d 459, 469 (2d Cir. 2017).\n 37 In re Cendant Corp., 76 F. Supp. 2d at 545 (quoting Childers v. Northwest Airlines,\nInc., 688 F. Supp. 1357, 1363 (D. Minn. 1988)).\n 38 Id. (quoting Bauman v. Bish, 571 F. Supp. 1054, 1064 (N.D.W. Va. 1983)).\n\n 12\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\ngrants fall outside the purview of the no-sale doctrine is contradictory: the\naffirmative investment decision is made when the employees decide whether\nto exercise their options, but their claims are explicitly based only on the grant\nof the options.\n Finding no caselaw to support their position, plaintiffs rely heavily on an\nSEC proceeding against Google, Inc. and David Drummond, Google’s general\ncounsel. 39 The SEC instituted cease-and-desist proceedings against Google and\nDrummond for failing to comply with Rule 701, which provides certain\nSecurities Act exemptions to securities issuers who are not subject to the\nExchange Act’s reporting requirements. 40 Rule 701 is designed to “allow[]\nprivately-held companies to compensate their employees with securities\nwithout incurring the obligations of public registration and reporting.” 41 The\nSEC determined that Google—a privately-held company to whom Rule 701\napplied—and Drummond violated or caused the company to violate its\nreporting requirements by exceeding the $5 million threshold set out by Rule\n701. 42 Plaintiffs contend that the proceedings “confirm” that granting stock\noptions involves a sale within the meaning of the Securities Act. Plaintiffs\noverread those proceedings. While their interpretation is a plausible extension\nof the Google decision, the SEC did not address the no-sale doctrine and made\nits decision in the context of concluding which exemptions a private company\ncould take advantage of. 43 We are not persuaded that the SEC’s decision in\nGoogle indicates a wholesale rejection of the no-sale doctrine in the context of\n\n\n\n 39 In the Matter of Google, Inc. and David C. Drummond, SEC Admin. Proc. No. 3-\n11795, Rel. No. 8523 (Jan. 13, 2005).\n 40 Id. at *2; 17 C.F.R. § 230.701(b)(1).\n 41 Id.\n 42 Id.\n 43 In addition to Rule 701, the SEC considered whether the Google option grants\n\nqualified under Section 4(2), which exempts certain private security offerings and Rule 506,\nwhich provides an exemption for options issued to certain accredited investors. Id.\n 13\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nemployee option grants. Finally, even if the Google decision did represent a\nchange in the SEC’s stance—and we conclude it does not—plaintiffs fail to\nshow how that 2005 decision could be applied retroactively to PaineWebber’s\nactions between 1998 and 2001. 44\n At base, plaintiffs Securities Act claims fail because their participation\nin the Employee Stock Option Plan was compulsory and employees furnished\nno value, or tangible and definable consideration in exchange for the option\ngrants. The Court in Daniel rejected the idea that the exchange of labor was\nsufficient consideration in the context of a compulsory, non-contributory\npension plan—the same logic applies to the option plan at issue here. 45\nPlaintiffs made no investment decision in the grant of the options, the Enron\nplans were compulsory and non-contributory. The fact that plaintiffs would\neventually make an affirmative investment decision—whether to exercise the\noption or let it expire—at some point in the future is of no consequence.\nPlaintiffs’ claims are based explicitly on the grant of the option, not the exercise\nof that option. Because plaintiffs have not overcome the most fundamental\nhurdle to their Securities Act claims, we need not consider UBS’s alternative\narguments that (1) PaineWebber was not an underwriter or seller; (2) plaintiffs\nfailed to allege that any false prospectus or registration statement covered the\nEnron options; and (3) that plaintiffs failed to plead damages. Plaintiffs’\nSecurities Act claims require a sale—plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that\nthe grant of Enron options amounted to the sale of a security. For those\nreasons, the district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs’ Section 11 and Section\n12 claims.\n\n\n\n\n 44 Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988) (“[A]dministrative rules\nwill not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.”).\n 45 Daniel, 439 U.S. at 569.\n\n 14\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\n IV.\n In their second set of claims, the retail-brokerage customer plaintiffs\ncontend that UBS violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5\nthereunder by failing to disclose information and knowledge regarding “the\nmanipulation of Enron’s public financial appearance” in the face of a duty to\ndo so. To state a claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange\nAct, a plaintiff must adequately allege “(1) a material misrepresentation (or\nomission); (2) scienter, i.e., a wrongful state of mind; (3) a connection with the\npurchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance . . .; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss\ncausation, i.e., a causal connection between the material misrepresentation\nand the loss.” 46 Plaintiffs’ claims are based on UBS’s alleged silence in violation\nof a duty to disclose. The crux of plaintiffs’ claim is that PaineWebber and\nWarburg united in a joint venture named UBS, that that joint venture owed a\nduty to its retail brokerage clients stemming from the security industry’s self-\nregulatory organization rules and UBS’s “special relationship” with plaintiffs,\nand that UBS failed to disclose information that “Enron manipulated and\nmaterially misstated its financial results to the public.”\n The district court concluded that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts\nto support a plausible claim that Warburg and PaineWebber functioned as a\nsingle entity, did not establish that defendants acted with scienter, and did not\nestablish that Warburg or UBS AG, which were not parties to the contract\nbetween Enron and PaineWebber, owed a duty to plaintiffs. Essentially, the\ndistrict court determined that plaintiffs had not shown that Warburg owed a\nduty to disclose information it possessed to clients of PaineWebber by virtue of\nany “joint venture” between Warburg and PaineWebber and, in fact, that\n\n\n\n 46 Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341–42 (2005) (internal\ncitations omitted).\n 15\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nWarburg could not share information with PaineWebber because of “federally\nrequired Chinese Walls” between PaineWebber and Warburg, in its capacity\nas an investment bank.\n After the parties submitted their briefing in this case, another panel of\nthis court issued an unpublished decision in a related case, affirming the same\ndistrict court’s dismissal of similar Exchange Act claims brought by\nPaineWebber customers who had bought Enron bonds or other debt\ninstruments. 47 In their response to defendants’ 28(j) letter, plaintiffs attempt\nto distinguish Giancarlo by stating that the panel “simply found the [appellate]\nbriefing submitted by the Giancarlo plaintiffs’ insufficient to demonstrate a §\n10(b) claim” and based its decision on those deficiencies rather than “perceived\ndeficiencies in their pleading in the trial court.” 48 Plaintiffs assert that the\npanel’s decision “is not a decision on the merits of the § 10(b) claim asserted by\nthe Plaintiffs in the Lampkin case.” 49 That characterization is inconsistent\nwith the panel opinion, which held that plaintiffs had not adequately\nestablished the existence of a joint venture, nor put forth any other theory that\npermitted aggregation of the actions and knowledge of the defendant entities, 50\nand had failed to establish that any one defendant had material non-public\nknowledge and a duty to disclose that knowledge to the plaintiffs. 51 The panel\nconcluded, therefore, that “the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’\n\n\n\n\n 47 Giancarlo v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 725 F. App’x 278 (5th Cir. 2018) (unpublished),\ncert denied, 139 S. Ct. 199 (2018). As defendants note in their 28(j) letter to this court,\nGiancarlo was litigated in parallel with the instant action by the same counsel before the\nsame district court. See Feb. 28, 2018 28(j) Letter.\n 48 March 6, 2018 Response to 28(j) Letter.\n 49 Id.\n 50 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 284.\n 51 Id. at 286.\n\n 16\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\namended complaint.” 52 Although we are not bound by an unpublished decision,\nwe find the reasoning in Giancarlo persuasive and adopt it here.\n First, plaintiffs contend that they adequately alleged that PaineWebber\nand Warburg united to form a joint venture named UBS. Plaintiffs urge that\nbecause PaineWebber and Warburg were incorporated under Delaware law,\nthe court looks to the Delaware standard for establishing that a joint venture\nexists: where there is (1) a community of interest in the performance of a\ncommon purpose, (2) joint control or right of control, (3) a joint proprietary\ninterest in the subject matter, (4) a right to share in the profits, (5) a duty to\nshare in the losses which must be sustained. 53 Plaintiffs point to allegations\nthat UBS made public admissions in media releases describing itself as an\n“integrated” bank and predicted in a press release after PaineWebber’s\nacquisition that PaineWebber would become “an integral part of UBS\nWarburg.” However, like the plaintiffs in Giancarlo, plaintiffs here do not\nexplain how the allegations they point to support a finding that defendants\nshared profits or losses or establish that defendants had joint control or right\nof control over the joint venture. 54 The press releases described by plaintiffs\nsupport a shared interest but are insufficient to support joint venture liability\nunder Delaware law—as this court in Giancarlo emphasized, “vague corporate\nplatitudes about integration as a firm” are insufficient to support a finding of\njoint venture liability. 55 Beyond plaintiffs’ conclusory statements that UBS\n\n\n\n 52 Id.\n 53 Warren v. Goldinger Bros., Inc., 414 A.2d 507, 509 (Del. 1980) (quoting Kilgore Seed\nCo. v. Lewin, 141 So. 2d 809, 810–11 (Fla. App. 1962)).\n 54 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 283–84 (“None of the allegations allude to profit sharing,\n\nor loss sharing.”) (citing N.S.N. Int’l Indus., N.V. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., C.A., No.\n12902, 1994 WL 148271 (Del. Ch. Mar. 31, 1994) (finding no joint venture where agreement\nbetween parties did not contemplate loss sharing)).\n 55 Id. (citing Warren, 414 A.2d at 509); see also Janus Cap. Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative\n\nTraders, 564 U.S. 135, 145–46 (2011) (“declin[ing] th[e] invitation to disregard the corporate\n 17\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nwas a single, integrated entity, plaintiffs have not established the existence of\na joint venture and, as in Giancarlo, “have not put forth any other theory that\npermits us to aggregate the actions and knowledge of the defendant entities\nfor purposes of assessing liability.” 56\n With respect to duty, plaintiffs contend that defendants had knowledge\nof material nonpublic information concerning Enron and that they owed a duty\nto disclose that information. Plaintiffs assert that a duty to disclose arose\nthrough UBS’s retail brokerage relationship with plaintiffs and through UBS’s\n“special relationship” as a entity between its retail client and its issuer client.\nBecause, as we discussed, plaintiffs have not adequately pled that Warburg\nand PaineWebber formed a joint venture, they must demonstrate that the\nentity that possessed the material, nonpublic information—according to\nplaintiffs allegations, Warburg or UBS AG—had the duty to disclose that\ninformation. 57\n Plaintiffs emphasize that a duty to disclose can arise without the\nexistence of a fiduciary duty, and point to two sources of the alleged duty here.\nFirst, they contend that the security industry’s self-regulation rules give rise\nto actionable duties under the Exchange Act. According to plaintiffs, the\nintegration of a retail brokerage business (PaineWebber) into the joint venture\nbrought with it duties placed on broker-dealers by the rules of two self-\nregulatory organizations (“SROs”), the NASD and NYSE. Plaintiffs claim that\nthe NASD and NYSE “establish obligatory standards” and “obligated UBS to\n\n\n\nform” where it was “undisputed that the corporate formalities were observed” and entities\nremained legally separate).\n 56 Id. at 284.\n 57 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 284 (“Moreover, even a searching review of the relevant\n\ndocuments supports, at most, that Warburg and UBS AG had some insider knowledge of\nEnron’s financial situation, as those are the defendants that participated in the transactions\nidentified by Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs must show that Warburg or UBS AG owed them a\nduty of disclosure.”).\n 18\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nspeak.” Plaintiffs’ complaint cites to NASD Rule 2210(d) which governs “[a]ll\nmember communications with the public” and mandates that “[n]o material\nfact or qualification may be omitted if the omission . . . would cause the\ncommunications to be misleading.” This theory of duty falls with plaintiffs’\ntheory of joint venture liability. The SRO rules depend on a communication—\nbut as in Giancarlo, PaineWebber was the entity that communicated with the\nretail brokerage customer plaintiffs but plaintiffs fail to allege that\nPaineWebber had knowledge of Enron’s financial misrepresentations. 58 The\ndefendant with the duty was not the defendant with the knowledge. Simply\nlabeling the offending entity “UBS” does not rescue plaintiffs from this fatal\nflaw.\n Plaintiffs also point to a second source of defendants’ alleged duty, the\nalleged “special relationship” between UBS and plaintiffs. Essentially,\nplaintiffs claim that UBS stood between Enron and its retail brokerage\ncustomers and that special relationship obligated its disclosure about Enron’s\nfinancial manipulations. In support of this alleged duty, plaintiffs rely on\nAffiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States. 59 In Affiliated Ute, a bank that\nwas acting as a transfer agent for Ute tribe members bought the plaintiffs’\nrestricted stock without disclosing that they had created a secondary market\nfor the stock where they could sell it for a profit. 60 The Court held that the\n“sellers had the right to know that the defendants were in a position to gain\nfinancially from their sales and that their shares were selling for a higher price\n\n\n\n 58 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 285 (“The only defendant alleged to have ‘communicated’\nwith Plaintiffs is PaineWebber, and Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that any person\nat PaineWebber had knowledge concerning Enron’s financial manipulations. Thus, even if\nwe accepted Plaintiffs’ invitation to hold that NASD rules can impose a duty of disclosure for\npurposes of § 10(b) liability, Plaintiffs have not shown that any defendant violated such\nrules.”) (internal citations omitted).\n 59 406 U.S. 128 (1972).\n 60 Affiliated Ute, 406 U.S. at 152–53.\n\n 19\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nin that market.” 61 Plaintiffs have not alleged an analogous relationship\nbetween themselves and the entity that sold them securities, PaineWebber.\nFurthermore, plaintiffs do not suggest that PaineWebber was the entity that\nhad knowledge of the Enron securities market. 62 PaineWebber was the broker\nfor the retail-brokerage customers while UBS AG and Warburg were the\nentities that played a role in the particular transactions identified in the\ncomplaint purporting to evidence the material knowledge of Enron’s financial\nmanipulations—again, plaintiffs’ use of the grouping “UBS” does not cure the\nfact of those entities’ separate legal statuses.\n Plaintiffs fundamentally fail to establish that either defendant had\nmaterial, nonpublic knowledge to disclose and a duty to disclose. They attempt\nto circumvent this requirement by arguing that UBS operated as a “single,\nfully integrated entity,” meaning that any material, nonpublic information\nknown to UBS AG or Warburg had to be disclosed by PaineWebber. Because\nthey have not adequately pled that defendants formed a joint venture, the lack\nof particularized allegations that any defendant entity possessed material\ninformation about Enron’s finances and a duty of disclosure are fatal to their\nclaim. 63\n\n\n\n\n 61 Id. at 153.\n 62 See e.g., Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 286 (“Documents attached to the pleadings\ndiscuss the role of ‘UBS Warburg AG’ in several transactions and indicate that that ‘UBS\nWarburg’ was the ‘joint lead manager of Credit Linked Notes for Enron.’ Plaintiffs specify\nthat their brokers were employees of PaineWebber. Plaintiffs do not argue that PaineWebber\nhad any special knowledge of the market for Enron debt securities, and UBS AG’s and\nWarburg’s dealings with Enron cannot support that PaineWebber had a duty of disclosure.”).\n 63 Id. at 284 (citing Fin. Acquisition Partners LP v. Blackwell, 440 F.3d 278, 289 (5th\n\nCir. 2006)).\n 20\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\n V.\n Plaintiffs contend that, even if their third amended complaint was\nproperly dismissed by the district court, the court abused its discretion in\ndenying them the opportunity to file an amended complaint.\n While Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that leave to amend shall be “freely”\ngiven, 64 where a plaintiff seeks to amend its complaint after a scheduling order\nhas been entered, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) governs. 65 Under that rule, a scheduling\norder “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 66\nThe court must consider four factors in determining whether there was good\ncause for the delay: (1) the explanation for the failure to timely move for leave\nto amend, (2) the importance of the amendment, (3) the potential prejudice the\nother party would suffer if the amendment was allowed, and (4) the availability\nof a continuance to cure that prejudice. 67\n Plaintiffs explain their failure to seek timely amendment, pointing to\ndepositions of Enron’s former CFO and UBS’s expert, which were taken after\nthe amendment deadline, and UBS’s “unforeseeable denial” of facts admitted\nto in its SEC filings. As this court recognized in Giancarlo, which proceeded\nunder a similar schedule, Enron’s CFO was deposed eight months before this\naction was stayed, during which time plaintiffs failed to seek to amend their\ncomplaint. 68 Plaintiffs waited a full two years after Stoneridge was decided\nbefore moving to lift the stay. Plaintiffs’ suggestion that they could not have\npredicted that defendants would argue that Warburg and PaineWebber are\nseparate legal entities is implausible given the reference to different entities\n\n\n\n 64 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).\n 65 S&W Enters., 315 F.3d at 535.\n 66 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).\n 67 S&W Enters., 315 F.3d at 536 (citing Reliance Ins. Co. v. La. Land & Exploration\n\nCo., 110 F.3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1997)).\n 68 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 287–88.\n\n 21\n\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-20608\nin different allegations of the operative complaint. Plaintiffs also submit that\nthe proposed amendment was “clearly” important given the dismissal in the\ncase. Again, as in Giancarlo, that conclusory statement does not tell this court\nwhich new allegations would cure the deficiencies highlighted by the district\ncourt. 69 Specifically, plaintiffs have not made clear how their revised\nallegations would support their theory that PaineWebber and Warburg\nparticipated in a joint venture. Even taking plaintiffs at their word that\ndefendants would not have been overly prejudiced by the proposed\namendment, the first two factors in the analysis are determinative here. The\ndistrict court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant leave to amend.\n VI.\n Because plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Securities Act or the\nExchange Act and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying\nplaintiffs an additional chance to amend their complaint, we affirm the district\ncourt’s dismissal.\n\n\n\n\n 69 Id. at 288.\n 22\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Kevin LAMPKIN; Stephen Miller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; Joe Brown; Frank Gittess; Terry Nelson; Dianne Swiber; Robert Ferrell, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Formerly Known as UBS PaineWebber, Incorporated; UBS Securities, L.L.C., Formerly Known as UBS Warburg, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-24\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nCase: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n FILED\\n May 24, 2019\\n No. 17-20608\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\n Clerk\\nKEVIN LAMPKIN; STEPHEN MILLER, individually and on behalf of all\\nothers similarly situated; JOE BROWN; FRANK GITTESS; TERRY\\nNELSON; DIANNE SWIBER; ROBERT FERRELL,\\n\\n Plaintiffs - Appellants\\n\\nv.\\n\\nUBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, formerly known as UBS\\nPainewebber, Incorporated; UBS SECURITIES, L.L.C., formerly known as\\nUBS Warburg, L.L.C.,\\n\\n Defendants - Appellees\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Texas\\n\\n\\nBefore HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.\\nPATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:\\n This is another appeal arising out of the collapse of Enron. Plaintiffs are\\nindividual retail-brokerage customers of Paine-Webber who purchased Enron\\nsecurities and Enron employees who acquired employee stock options.\\nPlaintiffs brought this action against subsidiaries of UBS, alleging violations\\nof the securities laws for their role as a broker of Enron’s employee stock option\\nplan and for failure to disclose material information about Enron’s financial\\nmanipulations to its retail investors. The case was initially consolidated into\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nthe Enron MDL until the plaintiffs elected to proceed on their own complaint.\\nAfter a lengthy stay and multiple amendments to their original pleading, the\\ndistrict court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm.\\n I.\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants bring this putative class action alleging violations\\nof the securities laws against Defendants-Appellees UBS Financial Services,\\nInc. (formerly UBS PaineWebber (“PaineWebber”)) and UBS Securities LLC\\n(formerly UBS Warburg LLC (“Warburg”)). During the relevant time period,\\nPaineWebber and Warburg were separate legal entities and subsidiaries of\\nUBS AG.\\n Plaintiffs fall into two groups: (1) individual retail-brokerage customers\\nof PaineWebber who purchased Enron securities in a PaineWebber brokerage\\naccount between November 5, 2000 and December 2, 2001 and (2) Enron\\nemployees who acquired Enron stock option securities through their\\nemployment between October 19, 1998 and November 19, 2001, which they\\nallege that PaineWebber underwrote (§ 11 claims) and sold (§ 12 claims).\\nPaineWebber provided retail brokerage services to individuals and was\\nacquired by UBS in July 2000. Warburg provided investment-banking services\\nto institutional clients.\\n Until its collapse in late 2001, Enron was the seventh largest corporation\\nin the world. Enron began as a traditional energy production and transmission\\ncompany, concentrating in natural gas pipelines, but quickly grew into an\\n“industry leader in the purchase, transportation, marketing, and sale of\\nnatural gas and electricity” and related financial instruments. Enron’s rapid\\nexpansion made it a large consumer of cash and the company considered its\\ncredit ratings critical to its success. According to the complaint, Enron began\\nto “seriously manipulate [its] financials” to conceal the negative effects of its\\naccounting practices on public financial statements. After a series of financial\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\ndisclosures and restatements events spiraled: the company’s CFO, Andrew\\nFastow, was placed on a leave of absence, the Board of Directors formed a\\nspecial committee to investigate the financial disclosures, and eventually,\\nEnron filed for bankruptcy.\\n Plaintiffs allege that UBS 1 and Enron maintained a “mutually self-\\nserving relationship that took precedence over and conflicted with the interests\\nof UBS’s retail customers.” They claim that PaineWebber provided millions of\\nretail investors to whom Enron securities could be funneled, transferring\\nEnron’s risk into the marketplace and, in return, Enron chose PaineWebber as\\nthe administrator of its Enron Employee Stock Option Plans, giving UBS the\\n“first bite at capturing Enron employee wealth to generate retail fees and\\nincome.” Enron granted stock option plans to its employees in 1991, 1994, and\\n1999. 2 Under the terms of the plans, an Enron board committee 3 had the sole\\nauthority to designate participants in the stock plan and determine the types\\nof awards to be granted to a participant, which were granted “for no cash\\nconsideration or for such minimal cash consideration as may be required by\\nlaw.” PaineWebber contracted to provide brokerage services for those plans,\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Throughout the complaint, plaintiffs refer generally to “UBS.” Plaintiffs state at the\\noutset that “P[aine]W[ebber], Warburg, and UBS AG may be collectively referred to herein\\nas ‘UBS.’” When describing allegations in the complaint, we use the language of the complaint\\nwith respect to which defendant was responsible for each alleged action. Defendants reject\\nthe notion that they can be viewed as a “joint venture” for purposes of assessing liability\\nunder the securities laws, and that argument is discussed infra, Section III.\\n 2 Defendants attached copies of the 1999 Enron Stock Plan, and the “letter agreement”\\n\\nthrough which PaineWebber agreed to provide broker financing to Enron for the execution of\\nemployee stock options, to its motion to dismiss before the district court. Those documents\\nare properly considered here. Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288\\n(5th Cir. 2004) (“Documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered\\npart of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to her\\nclaim.”).\\n 3 “Committee” is defined as “a committee of the Board of Directors of the Company\\n\\ndesignated by such Board to administer the Plan and composed of not less than two outside\\ndirectors.”\\n 3\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nagreeing to serve as the “exclusive broker for stock option exercises of all\\n[Enron’s] publicly traded securities.” While Enron granted the options,\\nPaineWebber was tasked with facilitating the option exercises and providing\\nrecord-keeping services related to the exercise of options. On the basis of those\\nallegations, plaintiffs claim violations under Sections 11 and 12 of the\\nSecurities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). 4 Plaintiffs claim that\\nPaineWebber violated the Securities Act by acting as a “seller” and\\n“underwriter” of Enron securities within the meaning of that statute, making\\nPaineWebber liable for “materially false statements contained in the Enron\\nprospectuses and registration statements” for Enron stock.\\n Plaintiffs also allege that UBS had knowledge of Enron’s “financial\\nchicanery” because of its “long standing banking history with Enron.”\\nEmphasizing that UBS is a single, integrated business venture, plaintiffs\\nallege that UBS positioned itself between its retail brokerage clients and\\nEnron, its corporate client, making it impossible for UBS to fulfill its legal\\nobligations to both groups. They claim UBS had material nonpublic\\ninformation about Enron’s financial manipulations and a duty to disclose that\\ninformation to its retail-brokerage customers. Plaintiffs highlight several\\ntransactions UBS participated in that they allege evidence UBS’s knowledge\\nof material information: (1) 1999 and 2000 amendments of equity-forward\\ncontracts, (2) participation in Osprey and Yosemite IV financial structures, and\\n(3) participation in the Enron E-Next Generation Loan. According to plaintiffs,\\nthose transactions were devices and schemes designed to inflate the\\nappearance of Enron’s financial status.\\n Equity-forward contracts were financial instruments through which\\nEnron was contractually obligated to purchase a specific number of Enron\\n\\n\\n 4 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77l.\\n 4\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nshares at a specific price from UBS and UBS had to deliver to Enron a specific\\nnumber of shares at a specific price. The complaint alleges that those\\ninstruments were, in substance, undocumented and undisclosed loans to\\nEnron to support Enron’s hedge transactions used to manage its income. It\\ndocuments two restructurings in 1999 and 2000 through which UBS increased\\nthe forward contract price, allowing Enron to extract the value from the shares\\nin the amount of the difference between the initial forward contract price and\\nthe increased market value of the shares. Plaintiffs allege that these\\nrestructurings provided Enron hedges for assets that could not be hedged as\\nwell as seed money for elicit accounting and that UBS had “institutional\\nknowledge of their fraudulent nature.”\\n With respect to its participation in the Osprey and Yosemite IV\\ntransactions, plaintiffs allege that UBS participated in a follow-on offering of\\nnotes issued in connection with Enron’s Osprey structure and purchased Enron\\ncredit-linked notes offered as part of Enron’s Yosemite IV structure. Plaintiffs\\nclaim that UBS relied on other firms’ diligence and failed to undertake its own\\ndue diligence in contravention of “relevant industry standards and UBS’s own\\ninternal policies.” By failing to conduct its own due diligence, plaintiffs claim\\nUBS acted recklessly in failing to learn that “Enron used the Osprey structure\\nto generate income by parking overvalued, non-performing assets in the\\nstructure.” Similarly, plaintiffs allege UBS either knew, or was reckless in not\\nknowing, that Enron used the Yosemite IV transactions to obtain disguised\\nloans.\\n Finally, plaintiffs allege that E-Next Generation is “the best documented\\nexample of UBS participating in a materially false public presentation of\\nEnron’s financial appearance.” They claim that UBS created an off-balance\\nsheet loan to allow Enron to finance “the construction of its US electric\\ngenerating build out and then, once the construction was complete, bring the\\n 5\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nproject onto Enron’s balance sheet” after it started generating revenues.\\nPlaintiffs allege that the existence of the loan and its structure to avoid public\\ndisclosure were material facts to investors.\\n On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs claim violations of Section\\n10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) 5 and Rule\\n10b-5 thereunder. 6 They claim UBS violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act\\nand Rule 10b-5 thereunder by failing to disclose the conflicts under which it\\noperated its brokerage business and the information and knowledge it\\npossessed during the class period concerning the manipulation of Enron’s\\npublic financial appearance. Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ acts, practices,\\nand course of business combined to operate a fraud upon the plaintiffs,\\ndeceiving them “into believing the price at which they purchased or held their\\nEnron securities was determined by the natural interplay of supply and\\ndemand.”\\n This case was initially filed in March 2002 and has a long procedural\\nhistory. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in June 2002 and, in\\nNovember of that year, this case was coordinated with a multi-district\\nlitigation under the lead case Newby v. Enron Corp. In November 2003, the\\ndistrict court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended\\ncomplaint and the case proceeded to discovery. In July 2006, the district court\\nordered all MDL plaintiffs who wanted to proceed under their own complaints\\nto give notice of that intent, which plaintiffs did, opting to “proceed under their\\nown independent complaint, as finally amended.” The operative third amended\\ncomplaint was filed the next month and defendants filed a timely motion to\\ndismiss. Shortly thereafter, this court decertified the Newby class 7 and the\\n\\n\\n 5 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b).\\n 6 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.\\n 7 Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. Credit Suisse First Bos., 482 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007).\\n\\n 6\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nSupreme Court granted certiorari on a case concerning the scope of liability\\nunder Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. 8 The district court stayed this case\\npending resolution of Stoneridge by the Supreme Court. Two years after the\\nSupreme Court’s decision came down, plaintiffs moved to lift the stay and, a\\nyear later, the district court lifted that stay. Plaintiffs moved to amend their\\ncomplaint a fourth time and the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion as\\nuntimely. In February 2017, five and a half years after the stay was lifted, the\\ndistrict court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied plaintiffs’\\nsubsequent motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed.\\n II.\\n “This court reviews de novo a district court’s grant or denial of a Rule\\n12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, ‘accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing\\nthose facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[.]’” 9 “To survive a motion\\nto dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as\\ntrue, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 10 “A claim has facial\\nplausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to\\ndraw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct\\nalleged.” 11 However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the\\nallegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions” or\\n“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere\\nconclusory statements.” 12 Where a plaintiff alleges fraud, Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)\\n“creates a heightened pleading requirement that ‘the circumstances\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008).\\n 9 True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Stokes v. Gann, 498 F.3d\\n483, 484 (5th Cir. 2007)).\\n 10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550\\n\\nU.S. 544, 570 (2007)).\\n 11 Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).\\n 12 Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).\\n\\n 7\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nconstituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.’” 13 To meet\\nthat heightened pleading standard, “the who, what, when, and where must be\\nlaid out before access to the discovery process is granted.” 14 Securities fraud\\nclaims under Section 10(b) are subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading\\nstandards. 15\\n This court reviews a district court’s decision denying a motion for leave\\nto amend for abuse of discretion. 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) governs amendments\\nto pleadings after a scheduling order has been entered by the district court 17\\nand provides that a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and\\nwith the judge’s consent.” 18\\n III.\\n Plaintiffs bring claims against PaineWebber in its capacity as “the\\nexclusive broker and stock option plan administrator for Enron,” contending\\nthat PaineWebber is liable for false statements in Enron’s prospectuses and\\nregistration statements. Under Section 11, an underwriter can be liable to a\\nperson who acquires a security where the registration statement “contained an\\nuntrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required\\nto be stated therein.” 19 Under Section 12, any person who “offers or sells a\\nsecurity,” with a prospectus or oral communication “which includes an untrue\\nstatement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order\\n\\n\\n\\n 13 United States ex rel. Rafizadeh v. Cont’l Common, Inc., 553 F.3d 869, 872 (5th Cir.\\n2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)).\\n 14 Southland Secs. Corp. v. Inspire Ins. Sols., Inc., 365 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2004)\\n\\n(quoting ABC Arbitrage Plaintiffs Grp. v. Tchuruk, 291 F.3d 336, 349 (5th Cir. 2002)).\\n 15 Id. at 3620\\n 16 Moore v. Manns, 732 F.3d 454, 456 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Wilson v. Bruks-Klockner,\\n\\nInc., 602 F.3d 363, 368 (5th Cir. 2010).\\n 17 S&W Enters., LLC v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir.\\n\\n2003).\\n 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).\\n 19 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a)(5).\\n\\n 8\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nto make such statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they\\nwere made, not misleading,” is liable to the person “purchasing such security\\nfrom him.” 20\\n The parties dispute whether the Enron employee stock option plans\\namounted to a sale of securities within the meaning of the statute. The district\\ncourt held that the stock option plans did not constitute a sale as a matter of\\nlaw because “there is no investment of money in a common enterprise with\\nprofits to come solely from the efforts of others, for which the plan participants\\nexpect a profit and . . . because Enron’s stock option plans are noncontributory\\nand compulsory for its employees.” Plaintiffs contend that the district court\\nerred by conflating employee stock ownership plans and employee stock option\\nplans. While an employee benefit plan requires a court to determine whether\\nthe beneficiary interest is a security, plaintiffs assert that the stock options\\nhere are securities under the statutory definition, meaning the Daniel test to\\ndetermine whether the interest is a security is inapplicable. Relying on the\\nsame distinction, plaintiffs maintain that the SEC’s “no-sale doctrine” for\\nemployee benefit plans does not apply to employee stock option plans.\\nPlaintiffs contend that there was a “sale” here because the grant of the Enron\\noptions was “for value”—the provision of services through employment.\\n Sections 11 and 12 expressly limit liability to “purchasers or sellers of\\nsecurities.” 21 The Securities Act defines a sale as “every contract of sale or\\ndisposition of a security or interest in a security, for value.” 22 In Daniel, the\\nSupreme Court determined that an employee’s “participation in a\\nnoncontributory, compulsory pension plan” is not the equivalent of purchasing\\n\\n\\n 20 15 U.S.C. § 77l(a)(2).\\n 21 Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 736 (1975) (“§ 11(a) of the\\n1933 Act confines the cause of action it grants to ‘any person acquiring such security’ while\\nthe remedy granted by § 12 of that Act is limited to the ‘person purchasing such security.’”).\\n 22 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(3).\\n\\n 9\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\na security. 23 To determine whether a transaction “constitutes an investment\\ncontract, ‘[t]he test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in\\na common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others.’” 24\\nThe Court noted that for the employees participating in the pension plan, the\\n“purported investment is a relatively insignificant part” of the employee’s total\\ncompensation, and the decision to accept and retain employment likely had\\nonly an attenuated relationship to the investment. 25 For that reason,\\nparticipation in the noncontributory, compulsory pension plan was unlike\\nother cases where the Court recognized “the presence of a ‘security’ under the\\nSecurities Acts”—in those cases the investor gave up a specific consideration\\nin return for a “separable financial interest with the characteristics of a\\nsecurity.” 26\\n Shortly after Daniel, the SEC issued a release to “resolve the\\nuncertainty” surrounding Daniel’s application to “many types of employee\\nbenefit plans not covered by the decision.” 27 In that release, the SEC clarified\\nthat “for the registration and antifraud provisions of the 1933 Act to be\\napplicable, there must be an offer or sale of a security.” 28 The SEC went on to\\nexplain that although “plans under which an employer awards shares of its\\nstock to covered employees at no direct cost to the employees” do award\\nsecurities, “there is no ‘sale’ in the 1933 Act sense to employees, since such\\npersons do not individually bargain to contribute cash or other tangible or\\ndefinable consideration to such plans.” 29 The following year, the SEC released\\n\\n\\n\\n 23Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551, 558 (1979) (citing SEC v.\\nW.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 300 (1946)).\\n 24 Id.\\n 25 Id. at 560.\\n 26 Id. at 559.\\n 27 SEC Release No. 33-6188, 45 F.R. 8960 (Feb. 1, 1980).\\n 28 Id. at 8962.\\n 29 Id. at 8968.\\n\\n 10\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\na second interpretive release to supplement the 1980 release and “provide\\nfurther guidance and assistance to employers and plan participants in\\ncomplying with the Act.” 30 The SEC clarified the definition of voluntary and\\ncontributory plans, noting “it is the staff’s view that the determination of\\nwhether a plan is a voluntary contributory one rests solely on whether the\\nparticipating employees can decide at some point whether or not to contribute\\ntheir own funds to the plan.” 31 In an interpretive release on Regulation D\\nexemptions, the SEC noted “[i]n a typical plan, the grant of the options will not\\nbe deemed a sale of a security for purposes of the Securities Act.” 32\\nPaineWebber also points to a number of “No Action Letters” sent by the SEC\\nthat support the conclusion that the SEC does not consider a compulsory option\\ngrant a “sale” under the Securities Act. 33\\n Consistent with the interpretations of the SEC, courts have extended\\nDaniel to compulsory and involuntary employee stock option plans. 34 “A\\n\\n\\n\\n 30 SEC Release No. 33-6281, 1981 WL 36298 (Jan. 15, 1981).\\n 31 Id. at *2.\\n 32 SEC Release No. 33-6455, 48 F.R. 10045, 10054 (March 10, 1983). Plaintiffs take\\n\\npains to minimize this statement, correctly noting that it was made in the context of defining\\nthe scope of Regulation D exemptions for an employee stock option plan for key employees.\\nId. While they are correct about the context, the statement did not explicitly limit its no-sale\\ndetermination to that narrower context. While not determinative on its own, the statement\\nfurther supports PaineWebber’s position that the compulsory option grants were not a sale\\nunder the meaning of the Securities Act.\\n 33 See e.g., Sarnoff Corp., SEC No-Action Letter, 2001 WL 811033, at *10 (July 16,\\n\\n2001) (“As discussed earlier, Sarnoff would give employees Interests or options to acquire\\nInterests at no cost, and would receive no cash, property, services, or surrender of a legal\\nright in exchange for the Interests or options (including upon exercise of the options). Rather,\\nSarnoff employees would be fully, fairly, and completely compensated for their employment\\nactivities on behalf of Sarnoff through Sarnoff's standard salary, bonuses, and similar\\ncompensation. Hence, the Program would not involve the ‘sale,’ ‘offer for sale,’ or ‘solicitation\\nof an offer to buy’ securities and no registration therefore should be required under the\\nSecurities Act.”).\\n 34 See e.g., In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 76 F. Supp. 2d 539, 544–45 (D.N.J. 1999)\\n\\n(“[C]ourts apply the SEC’s ‘no sale’ doctrine when an employee’s plan is found to be\\ncompulsory and noncontributory. This reasoning has been extended to employee stock option\\nplans.”) (internal citation omitted).\\n 11\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nhallmark of a ‘voluntary’ plan is the ability of the employee to make an\\n‘investment decision’ to acquire the stock options.” 35 The central question of\\nDaniel is “whether employees made an investment decision that could be\\ninfluenced by fraud or manipulation.” 36 Where employees’ participation is an\\n“incident of employment,” there is no bargained-for exchange that requires an\\naffirmative investment decision 37—under Daniel, the “exchange of labor” is\\ninsufficient. 38\\n Plaintiffs assert that the cases extending the no-sale doctrine to\\nemployee stock option plans are a pernicious “disease” infecting the federal\\njurisprudence—they maintain that the doctrine is limited to ERISA employee\\nbenefit plans like the employee pension plan at issue in Daniel and certain\\nemployee stock ownership plans. But as the district court correctly recognized,\\nthe grant of options to employees here was not a sale. The employees did not\\nbargain for the options and they were granted for no cash consideration.\\nPlaintiffs attempt to distinguish option grants by pointing out that the\\nemployees would be forced to make an affirmative investment decision after\\nthe grants were made—at that point, employees would decide whether to\\nexercise the option or allow it to expire unexercised. However, plaintiffs\\nexpressly disclaim reliance on the exercise of the options. Indeed they\\nrepeatedly emphasize that “[t]he Options Plaintiffs’ claims in no way depend\\nupon the exercise of a stock option to purchase the underlying stock.” Their\\nclaim is based entirely on the grant of the options—an action which required\\nno affirmative investment decision by the plaintiffs. Their theory that option\\n\\n\\n\\n 35 In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 81 F. Supp. 2d 550 (D.N.J. 2000) (internal citation\\nomitted).\\n 36 In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 855 F.3d 459, 469 (2d Cir. 2017).\\n 37 In re Cendant Corp., 76 F. Supp. 2d at 545 (quoting Childers v. Northwest Airlines,\\nInc., 688 F. Supp. 1357, 1363 (D. Minn. 1988)).\\n 38 Id. (quoting Bauman v. Bish, 571 F. Supp. 1054, 1064 (N.D.W. Va. 1983)).\\n\\n 12\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\ngrants fall outside the purview of the no-sale doctrine is contradictory: the\\naffirmative investment decision is made when the employees decide whether\\nto exercise their options, but their claims are explicitly based only on the grant\\nof the options.\\n Finding no caselaw to support their position, plaintiffs rely heavily on an\\nSEC proceeding against Google, Inc. and David Drummond, Google’s general\\ncounsel. 39 The SEC instituted cease-and-desist proceedings against Google and\\nDrummond for failing to comply with Rule 701, which provides certain\\nSecurities Act exemptions to securities issuers who are not subject to the\\nExchange Act’s reporting requirements. 40 Rule 701 is designed to “allow[]\\nprivately-held companies to compensate their employees with securities\\nwithout incurring the obligations of public registration and reporting.” 41 The\\nSEC determined that Google—a privately-held company to whom Rule 701\\napplied—and Drummond violated or caused the company to violate its\\nreporting requirements by exceeding the $5 million threshold set out by Rule\\n701. 42 Plaintiffs contend that the proceedings “confirm” that granting stock\\noptions involves a sale within the meaning of the Securities Act. Plaintiffs\\noverread those proceedings. While their interpretation is a plausible extension\\nof the Google decision, the SEC did not address the no-sale doctrine and made\\nits decision in the context of concluding which exemptions a private company\\ncould take advantage of. 43 We are not persuaded that the SEC’s decision in\\nGoogle indicates a wholesale rejection of the no-sale doctrine in the context of\\n\\n\\n\\n 39 In the Matter of Google, Inc. and David C. Drummond, SEC Admin. Proc. No. 3-\\n11795, Rel. No. 8523 (Jan. 13, 2005).\\n 40 Id. at *2; 17 C.F.R. § 230.701(b)(1).\\n 41 Id.\\n 42 Id.\\n 43 In addition to Rule 701, the SEC considered whether the Google option grants\\n\\nqualified under Section 4(2), which exempts certain private security offerings and Rule 506,\\nwhich provides an exemption for options issued to certain accredited investors. Id.\\n 13\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nemployee option grants. Finally, even if the Google decision did represent a\\nchange in the SEC’s stance—and we conclude it does not—plaintiffs fail to\\nshow how that 2005 decision could be applied retroactively to PaineWebber’s\\nactions between 1998 and 2001. 44\\n At base, plaintiffs Securities Act claims fail because their participation\\nin the Employee Stock Option Plan was compulsory and employees furnished\\nno value, or tangible and definable consideration in exchange for the option\\ngrants. The Court in Daniel rejected the idea that the exchange of labor was\\nsufficient consideration in the context of a compulsory, non-contributory\\npension plan—the same logic applies to the option plan at issue here. 45\\nPlaintiffs made no investment decision in the grant of the options, the Enron\\nplans were compulsory and non-contributory. The fact that plaintiffs would\\neventually make an affirmative investment decision—whether to exercise the\\noption or let it expire—at some point in the future is of no consequence.\\nPlaintiffs’ claims are based explicitly on the grant of the option, not the exercise\\nof that option. Because plaintiffs have not overcome the most fundamental\\nhurdle to their Securities Act claims, we need not consider UBS’s alternative\\narguments that (1) PaineWebber was not an underwriter or seller; (2) plaintiffs\\nfailed to allege that any false prospectus or registration statement covered the\\nEnron options; and (3) that plaintiffs failed to plead damages. Plaintiffs’\\nSecurities Act claims require a sale—plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that\\nthe grant of Enron options amounted to the sale of a security. For those\\nreasons, the district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs’ Section 11 and Section\\n12 claims.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 44 Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988) (“[A]dministrative rules\\nwill not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.”).\\n 45 Daniel, 439 U.S. at 569.\\n\\n 14\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\n IV.\\n In their second set of claims, the retail-brokerage customer plaintiffs\\ncontend that UBS violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5\\nthereunder by failing to disclose information and knowledge regarding “the\\nmanipulation of Enron’s public financial appearance” in the face of a duty to\\ndo so. To state a claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange\\nAct, a plaintiff must adequately allege “(1) a material misrepresentation (or\\nomission); (2) scienter, i.e., a wrongful state of mind; (3) a connection with the\\npurchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance . . .; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss\\ncausation, i.e., a causal connection between the material misrepresentation\\nand the loss.” 46 Plaintiffs’ claims are based on UBS’s alleged silence in violation\\nof a duty to disclose. The crux of plaintiffs’ claim is that PaineWebber and\\nWarburg united in a joint venture named UBS, that that joint venture owed a\\nduty to its retail brokerage clients stemming from the security industry’s self-\\nregulatory organization rules and UBS’s “special relationship” with plaintiffs,\\nand that UBS failed to disclose information that “Enron manipulated and\\nmaterially misstated its financial results to the public.”\\n The district court concluded that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts\\nto support a plausible claim that Warburg and PaineWebber functioned as a\\nsingle entity, did not establish that defendants acted with scienter, and did not\\nestablish that Warburg or UBS AG, which were not parties to the contract\\nbetween Enron and PaineWebber, owed a duty to plaintiffs. Essentially, the\\ndistrict court determined that plaintiffs had not shown that Warburg owed a\\nduty to disclose information it possessed to clients of PaineWebber by virtue of\\nany “joint venture” between Warburg and PaineWebber and, in fact, that\\n\\n\\n\\n 46 Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341–42 (2005) (internal\\ncitations omitted).\\n 15\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nWarburg could not share information with PaineWebber because of “federally\\nrequired Chinese Walls” between PaineWebber and Warburg, in its capacity\\nas an investment bank.\\n After the parties submitted their briefing in this case, another panel of\\nthis court issued an unpublished decision in a related case, affirming the same\\ndistrict court’s dismissal of similar Exchange Act claims brought by\\nPaineWebber customers who had bought Enron bonds or other debt\\ninstruments. 47 In their response to defendants’ 28(j) letter, plaintiffs attempt\\nto distinguish Giancarlo by stating that the panel “simply found the [appellate]\\nbriefing submitted by the Giancarlo plaintiffs’ insufficient to demonstrate a §\\n10(b) claim” and based its decision on those deficiencies rather than “perceived\\ndeficiencies in their pleading in the trial court.” 48 Plaintiffs assert that the\\npanel’s decision “is not a decision on the merits of the § 10(b) claim asserted by\\nthe Plaintiffs in the Lampkin case.” 49 That characterization is inconsistent\\nwith the panel opinion, which held that plaintiffs had not adequately\\nestablished the existence of a joint venture, nor put forth any other theory that\\npermitted aggregation of the actions and knowledge of the defendant entities, 50\\nand had failed to establish that any one defendant had material non-public\\nknowledge and a duty to disclose that knowledge to the plaintiffs. 51 The panel\\nconcluded, therefore, that “the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 47 Giancarlo v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 725 F. App’x 278 (5th Cir. 2018) (unpublished),\\ncert denied, 139 S. Ct. 199 (2018). As defendants note in their 28(j) letter to this court,\\nGiancarlo was litigated in parallel with the instant action by the same counsel before the\\nsame district court. See Feb. 28, 2018 28(j) Letter.\\n 48 March 6, 2018 Response to 28(j) Letter.\\n 49 Id.\\n 50 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 284.\\n 51 Id. at 286.\\n\\n 16\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\namended complaint.” 52 Although we are not bound by an unpublished decision,\\nwe find the reasoning in Giancarlo persuasive and adopt it here.\\n First, plaintiffs contend that they adequately alleged that PaineWebber\\nand Warburg united to form a joint venture named UBS. Plaintiffs urge that\\nbecause PaineWebber and Warburg were incorporated under Delaware law,\\nthe court looks to the Delaware standard for establishing that a joint venture\\nexists: where there is (1) a community of interest in the performance of a\\ncommon purpose, (2) joint control or right of control, (3) a joint proprietary\\ninterest in the subject matter, (4) a right to share in the profits, (5) a duty to\\nshare in the losses which must be sustained. 53 Plaintiffs point to allegations\\nthat UBS made public admissions in media releases describing itself as an\\n“integrated” bank and predicted in a press release after PaineWebber’s\\nacquisition that PaineWebber would become “an integral part of UBS\\nWarburg.” However, like the plaintiffs in Giancarlo, plaintiffs here do not\\nexplain how the allegations they point to support a finding that defendants\\nshared profits or losses or establish that defendants had joint control or right\\nof control over the joint venture. 54 The press releases described by plaintiffs\\nsupport a shared interest but are insufficient to support joint venture liability\\nunder Delaware law—as this court in Giancarlo emphasized, “vague corporate\\nplatitudes about integration as a firm” are insufficient to support a finding of\\njoint venture liability. 55 Beyond plaintiffs’ conclusory statements that UBS\\n\\n\\n\\n 52 Id.\\n 53 Warren v. Goldinger Bros., Inc., 414 A.2d 507, 509 (Del. 1980) (quoting Kilgore Seed\\nCo. v. Lewin, 141 So. 2d 809, 810–11 (Fla. App. 1962)).\\n 54 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 283–84 (“None of the allegations allude to profit sharing,\\n\\nor loss sharing.”) (citing N.S.N. Int’l Indus., N.V. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., C.A., No.\\n12902, 1994 WL 148271 (Del. Ch. Mar. 31, 1994) (finding no joint venture where agreement\\nbetween parties did not contemplate loss sharing)).\\n 55 Id. (citing Warren, 414 A.2d at 509); see also Janus Cap. Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative\\n\\nTraders, 564 U.S. 135, 145–46 (2011) (“declin[ing] th[e] invitation to disregard the corporate\\n 17\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nwas a single, integrated entity, plaintiffs have not established the existence of\\na joint venture and, as in Giancarlo, “have not put forth any other theory that\\npermits us to aggregate the actions and knowledge of the defendant entities\\nfor purposes of assessing liability.” 56\\n With respect to duty, plaintiffs contend that defendants had knowledge\\nof material nonpublic information concerning Enron and that they owed a duty\\nto disclose that information. Plaintiffs assert that a duty to disclose arose\\nthrough UBS’s retail brokerage relationship with plaintiffs and through UBS’s\\n“special relationship” as a entity between its retail client and its issuer client.\\nBecause, as we discussed, plaintiffs have not adequately pled that Warburg\\nand PaineWebber formed a joint venture, they must demonstrate that the\\nentity that possessed the material, nonpublic information—according to\\nplaintiffs allegations, Warburg or UBS AG—had the duty to disclose that\\ninformation. 57\\n Plaintiffs emphasize that a duty to disclose can arise without the\\nexistence of a fiduciary duty, and point to two sources of the alleged duty here.\\nFirst, they contend that the security industry’s self-regulation rules give rise\\nto actionable duties under the Exchange Act. According to plaintiffs, the\\nintegration of a retail brokerage business (PaineWebber) into the joint venture\\nbrought with it duties placed on broker-dealers by the rules of two self-\\nregulatory organizations (“SROs”), the NASD and NYSE. Plaintiffs claim that\\nthe NASD and NYSE “establish obligatory standards” and “obligated UBS to\\n\\n\\n\\nform” where it was “undisputed that the corporate formalities were observed” and entities\\nremained legally separate).\\n 56 Id. at 284.\\n 57 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 284 (“Moreover, even a searching review of the relevant\\n\\ndocuments supports, at most, that Warburg and UBS AG had some insider knowledge of\\nEnron’s financial situation, as those are the defendants that participated in the transactions\\nidentified by Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs must show that Warburg or UBS AG owed them a\\nduty of disclosure.”).\\n 18\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nspeak.” Plaintiffs’ complaint cites to NASD Rule 2210(d) which governs “[a]ll\\nmember communications with the public” and mandates that “[n]o material\\nfact or qualification may be omitted if the omission . . . would cause the\\ncommunications to be misleading.” This theory of duty falls with plaintiffs’\\ntheory of joint venture liability. The SRO rules depend on a communication—\\nbut as in Giancarlo, PaineWebber was the entity that communicated with the\\nretail brokerage customer plaintiffs but plaintiffs fail to allege that\\nPaineWebber had knowledge of Enron’s financial misrepresentations. 58 The\\ndefendant with the duty was not the defendant with the knowledge. Simply\\nlabeling the offending entity “UBS” does not rescue plaintiffs from this fatal\\nflaw.\\n Plaintiffs also point to a second source of defendants’ alleged duty, the\\nalleged “special relationship” between UBS and plaintiffs. Essentially,\\nplaintiffs claim that UBS stood between Enron and its retail brokerage\\ncustomers and that special relationship obligated its disclosure about Enron’s\\nfinancial manipulations. In support of this alleged duty, plaintiffs rely on\\nAffiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States. 59 In Affiliated Ute, a bank that\\nwas acting as a transfer agent for Ute tribe members bought the plaintiffs’\\nrestricted stock without disclosing that they had created a secondary market\\nfor the stock where they could sell it for a profit. 60 The Court held that the\\n“sellers had the right to know that the defendants were in a position to gain\\nfinancially from their sales and that their shares were selling for a higher price\\n\\n\\n\\n 58 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 285 (“The only defendant alleged to have ‘communicated’\\nwith Plaintiffs is PaineWebber, and Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that any person\\nat PaineWebber had knowledge concerning Enron’s financial manipulations. Thus, even if\\nwe accepted Plaintiffs’ invitation to hold that NASD rules can impose a duty of disclosure for\\npurposes of § 10(b) liability, Plaintiffs have not shown that any defendant violated such\\nrules.”) (internal citations omitted).\\n 59 406 U.S. 128 (1972).\\n 60 Affiliated Ute, 406 U.S. at 152–53.\\n\\n 19\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nin that market.” 61 Plaintiffs have not alleged an analogous relationship\\nbetween themselves and the entity that sold them securities, PaineWebber.\\nFurthermore, plaintiffs do not suggest that PaineWebber was the entity that\\nhad knowledge of the Enron securities market. 62 PaineWebber was the broker\\nfor the retail-brokerage customers while UBS AG and Warburg were the\\nentities that played a role in the particular transactions identified in the\\ncomplaint purporting to evidence the material knowledge of Enron’s financial\\nmanipulations—again, plaintiffs’ use of the grouping “UBS” does not cure the\\nfact of those entities’ separate legal statuses.\\n Plaintiffs fundamentally fail to establish that either defendant had\\nmaterial, nonpublic knowledge to disclose and a duty to disclose. They attempt\\nto circumvent this requirement by arguing that UBS operated as a “single,\\nfully integrated entity,” meaning that any material, nonpublic information\\nknown to UBS AG or Warburg had to be disclosed by PaineWebber. Because\\nthey have not adequately pled that defendants formed a joint venture, the lack\\nof particularized allegations that any defendant entity possessed material\\ninformation about Enron’s finances and a duty of disclosure are fatal to their\\nclaim. 63\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 61 Id. at 153.\\n 62 See e.g., Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 286 (“Documents attached to the pleadings\\ndiscuss the role of ‘UBS Warburg AG’ in several transactions and indicate that that ‘UBS\\nWarburg’ was the ‘joint lead manager of Credit Linked Notes for Enron.’ Plaintiffs specify\\nthat their brokers were employees of PaineWebber. Plaintiffs do not argue that PaineWebber\\nhad any special knowledge of the market for Enron debt securities, and UBS AG’s and\\nWarburg’s dealings with Enron cannot support that PaineWebber had a duty of disclosure.”).\\n 63 Id. at 284 (citing Fin. Acquisition Partners LP v. Blackwell, 440 F.3d 278, 289 (5th\\n\\nCir. 2006)).\\n 20\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\n V.\\n Plaintiffs contend that, even if their third amended complaint was\\nproperly dismissed by the district court, the court abused its discretion in\\ndenying them the opportunity to file an amended complaint.\\n While Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that leave to amend shall be “freely”\\ngiven, 64 where a plaintiff seeks to amend its complaint after a scheduling order\\nhas been entered, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) governs. 65 Under that rule, a scheduling\\norder “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 66\\nThe court must consider four factors in determining whether there was good\\ncause for the delay: (1) the explanation for the failure to timely move for leave\\nto amend, (2) the importance of the amendment, (3) the potential prejudice the\\nother party would suffer if the amendment was allowed, and (4) the availability\\nof a continuance to cure that prejudice. 67\\n Plaintiffs explain their failure to seek timely amendment, pointing to\\ndepositions of Enron’s former CFO and UBS’s expert, which were taken after\\nthe amendment deadline, and UBS’s “unforeseeable denial” of facts admitted\\nto in its SEC filings. As this court recognized in Giancarlo, which proceeded\\nunder a similar schedule, Enron’s CFO was deposed eight months before this\\naction was stayed, during which time plaintiffs failed to seek to amend their\\ncomplaint. 68 Plaintiffs waited a full two years after Stoneridge was decided\\nbefore moving to lift the stay. Plaintiffs’ suggestion that they could not have\\npredicted that defendants would argue that Warburg and PaineWebber are\\nseparate legal entities is implausible given the reference to different entities\\n\\n\\n\\n 64 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).\\n 65 S&W Enters., 315 F.3d at 535.\\n 66 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).\\n 67 S&W Enters., 315 F.3d at 536 (citing Reliance Ins. Co. v. La. Land & Exploration\\n\\nCo., 110 F.3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1997)).\\n 68 Giancarlo, 725 F. App’x at 287–88.\\n\\n 21\\n\\f Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-20608\\nin different allegations of the operative complaint. Plaintiffs also submit that\\nthe proposed amendment was “clearly” important given the dismissal in the\\ncase. Again, as in Giancarlo, that conclusory statement does not tell this court\\nwhich new allegations would cure the deficiencies highlighted by the district\\ncourt. 69 Specifically, plaintiffs have not made clear how their revised\\nallegations would support their theory that PaineWebber and Warburg\\nparticipated in a joint venture. Even taking plaintiffs at their word that\\ndefendants would not have been overly prejudiced by the proposed\\namendment, the first two factors in the analysis are determinative here. The\\ndistrict court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant leave to amend.\\n VI.\\n Because plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Securities Act or the\\nExchange Act and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying\\nplaintiffs an additional chance to amend their complaint, we affirm the district\\ncourt’s dismissal.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 69 Id. at 288.\\n 22\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2064,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4624091,"string":"4,624,091"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY; The Travelers Indemnity Company of America; United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company; St. Paul Fire; Marine Insurance Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Ethel MITCHELL, Executrix of the Estate of Phillip Bivens; The Estate of Larry Ruffin ; The Estate of Bobby Ray Dixon; Laturas Smith; Carrie Strong, Defendants-Counter Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees v. Scottsdale Insurance Company Counter Defendant-Counter Plaintiff-Appellant"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Travelers Indemnity Company v. Forrest Coun"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-29"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-60291"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Higginbotham, Southwick, Costa\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge:\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n FILED\\n May 29, 2019\\n No. 17-60291\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\n Clerk\\nTHE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY; THE TRAVELERS\\nINDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND\\nGUARANTY COMPANY; ST. PAUL FIRE ; MARINE INSURANCE\\nCOMPANY,\\n\\n Plaintiffs - Appellants\\n\\nv.\\n\\nETHEL MITCHELL, Executrix of the Estate of Phillip Bivens; THE ESTATE\\nOF LARRY RUFFIN; THE ESTATE OF BOBBY RAY DIXON; LATURAS\\nSMITH; CARRIE STRONG,\\n\\n Defendants - Counter Plaintiffs - Counter Defendants - Appellees\\n\\nv.\\n\\nSCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY\\n\\n Counter Defendant - Counter Plaintiff - Appellant\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Mississippi\\n\\n\\nBefore HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK and COSTA, Circuit Judges.\\nGREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge:\\n Phillip Bivens, Bobby Ray Dixon, and Larry Ruffin spent a collective 83\\nyears in prison for the rape and murder of a woman in Forrest County,\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\nMississippi. Their confessions were coerced and evidence against them\\nfabricated. They were innocent.\\n By the time DNA evidence exonerated them, Ruffin had died in prison\\nwhile Dixon and Bivens had developed diseases that killed them not long after\\nthey gained the freedom to which they were always entitled. Their estates filed\\na civil rights lawsuit against Forrest County.\\n The question in this separate case is whether two of the County’s law\\nenforcement liability policies require the insurers to defend the civil rights suit.\\nThe answer turns on whether the policies are triggered when injuries occur\\nduring the policy period, even though the wrongful acts that caused the injuries\\noccurred before the policy period. The district court held there is a duty to\\ndefend. We agree.\\n I.\\n The first tragedy occurred in May 1979 when Eva Gail Patterson, a 25-\\nyear-old mother of two, was raped and murdered in her home. Her two sons\\nwatched her die. 1\\n The second tragedy began when officers of the Forrest County Sherriff’s\\nDepartment targeted Larry Ruffin for the crime. Ruffin was then an inmate\\nat a restitution center, where he was working to compensate the victim of a\\nminor theft. The day after the murder, Forrest County officers confronted\\nhim—one threatened to kill him—then locked him in the Forrest County jail\\nfor two days. Soon after, a Hattiesburg Police officer threatened another\\ninmate at the restitution center with false charges unless he implicated Ruffin\\nin the murder. Once armed with the fabricated statement, police arrested\\nRuffin.\\n\\n\\n 1 We draw our facts from the estates’ operative complaint because it determines\\nwhether the insurers must defend. Auto Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d 557, 559\\n(Miss. 2011).\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\n That evening, Forrest County and Hattiesburg officers “beat, punched,\\nkicked, slapped, and hurled racial slurs and death threats at Larry Ruffin,\\ndemanding that he confess to the crime.” It took seven hours to secure his\\nconfession.\\n The victim’s young son had told the police that there was only one\\nperpetrator. But in the fall of 1980, as Ruffin’s trial was approaching, police\\narrested Bobby Ray Dixon and Phillip Bivens. Dixon, who had previously been\\narrested with Ruffin for theft, was mentally handicapped as a result of being\\nkicked in the head by a horse as a child. After succumbing to beatings and\\nthreats of the death penalty, he confessed, implicating himself, Ruffin, and\\nBivens.\\n Bivens’s wife was related to Ruffin’s girlfriend. Bivens was a native\\nCalifornian who spent less than a year in Forrest County—but that year\\nincluded May 1979. After being arrested in California and flown back to\\nMississippi, he too was threatened with violence and death. He too confessed.\\n After their coerced confessions, Bivens and Dixon pleaded guilty. Ruffin\\nwas convicted at trial. All three got life sentences. In prison, they were the\\nvictims of numerous assaults by other prisoners. Each developed physical\\ninjuries and maladies, including Ruffin’s infection with syphilis and herpes in\\n1984–85, and Bivens’s contraction of Hepatitis C in 2007. They filed\\npostconviction appeals asserting their innocence, but each was rejected.\\n Dixon contacted the Innocence Project in 2008, and the Project obtained\\nDNA testing of the sperm from the victim’s rape kit. It matched the DNA\\nprofile of Andrew Harris, who was then serving a life sentence for another rape\\ncommitted shortly after the rape and murder for which Bivens, Dixon, and\\nRuffin were incarcerated.\\n Ruffin had been killed by an electrical shock eight years before he was\\nexonerated. Dixon died shortly after being released on medical parole but five\\n 3\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\nweeks before he was officially cleared. Bivens lived just three more years as a\\nfree man.\\n The estates sued Forrest County, the City of Hattiesburg, and several\\nindividual officers for civil rights violations, including coercing confessions,\\nfabricating evidence, withholding exculpatory evidence, and prosecuting\\nwithout probable cause. Over the years, Forrest County had purchased a\\nseries of law enforcement liability policies from various insurers. As relevant\\nto this case, a Scottsdale Insurance Company policy was effective from\\nNovember 1985 through November 1986, and St. Paul Fire and Marine\\nInsurance Company policies were effective from February 2005 through\\nFebruary 2011.\\n Travelers Indemnity Company (which is responsible for the St. Paul\\npolicies) sued for a declaratory judgment that it does not owe a duty to defend\\nForrest County from the civil rights claims. The estates brought counterclaims\\nagainst Scottsdale in the ensuing litigation. The district court rejected a duty\\nto defend for a number of insurers with policies in effect during the period of\\nincarceration. But, on cross-motions for summary judgment, it ruled that\\nTravelers and Scottsdale do owe duties to defend. Those two insurers appeal.\\n II.\\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.\\nAdmiral Ins. Co. v. Ford, 607 F.3d 420, 422 (5th Cir. 2010). The court’s\\ninterpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law that we also review\\nde novo. Id.\\n Mississippi requires that insurance policies be interpreted “exactly as\\nwritten,” so long as they are “clear and unambiguous.” George v. Mississippi\\nFarm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 168 So. 2d 530, 531 (Miss. 1964). If the policy’s\\nterms are ambiguous or doubtful, we interpret them “most favorably to the\\n\\n\\n 4\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\ninsured and against the insurer.” Centennial Ins. Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental,\\nInc., 149 F.3d 378, 382–83 (5th Cir. 1998).\\n Mississippi applies the so-called eight corners rule to determine whether\\nan insurer has a duty to defend a claim against its insured. That is, the\\nquestion is resolved by comparing the four corners of the policy with the four\\ncorners of the complaint. Auto Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d 557,\\n559 (Miss. 2011). If the complaint states a claim that is “within or arguably\\nwithin the scope of coverage provided by the policy,” the insurer must defend.\\nAm. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co. v. 1906 Co., 273 F.3d 605, 610 (5th Cir. 2001);\\nsee also Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d at 559 (explaining that insurers must defend\\nclaims that could “potentially” be covered).\\n A.\\n We begin with the terms of the policies. And because their language\\ndiffers, we discuss each separately.\\n The Travelers policy provided Forrest County and its officers with law\\nenforcement liability coverage from February 2005 through February 2011. Its\\nrelevant terms follow:\\n Law enforcement liability. We’ll pay amounts any protected\\n person is legally required to pay as damages for covered injury or\\n damage that:\\n • results from law enforcement activities or operations by or\\n for you;\\n • happens while this agreement is in effect; and\\n • is caused by a wrongful act that is committed while\\n conducting law enforcement operations.\\n ...\\n Injury or damage means bodily injury, personal injury, or property\\n damage.\\n Bodily injury means any harm to the health of other persons. It\\n includes care, loss of services, or death that results from such\\n harm.\\n Harm includes any of the following:\\n 5\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\n • Physical harm, sickness, or disease.\\n • Mental anguish, distress, injury, or illness.\\n • Emotional distress.\\n • Humiliation.\\n Personal Injury means injury, other than bodily injury, caused by\\n any of the following wrongful acts:\\n • False arrest, detention, or imprisonment.\\n • Malicious prosecution.\\n ...\\n Travelers does not dispute that Bivens’s and Dixon’s 2 injuries were\\ncaused by wrongful acts, or that some of those wrongful acts were committed\\nby Forrest County officials engaged in law enforcement activities. The issue is\\nwhether the injuries they suffered between 2005 and 2011 triggered a duty to\\ndefend, even though the wrongful causal acts occurred decades prior.\\n The Travelers policy provides coverage for “injury or damage that\\n. . . happens while this agreement is in effect.” That temporal requirement\\napplies only to the injury. The two other requirements for coverage—that the\\ninjury resulted from the insured’s “law enforcement activities” and was “caused\\nby a wrongful act that is committed while conducting law enforcement\\noperations”—do not have a temporal limitation. Travelers thus bargained for\\nan injury-based trigger of coverage, not an act-based trigger. Under the\\npolicy’s plain terms, Travelers must defend any claim in which covered injuries\\noccurred between 2005 and 2011, regardless of when the wrongful causal act\\noccurred.\\n Travelers argues that Bivens and Dixon could not have been injured by\\nfalse imprisonment 25 years after their convictions because false\\nimprisonment ends with the inception of legal process. See Wallace v. Kato,\\n549 U.S. 384, 389 (2007) (“Reflective of the fact that false imprisonment\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Ruffin died in 2002, before the Travelers policy took effect.\\n 6\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\nconsists of detention without legal process, a false imprisonment ends once the\\nvictim becomes held pursuant to such process . . . .” (emphasis in original)). We\\nagree that Bivens’s and Dixon’s continued imprisonment, alone, did not trigger\\ncoverage. The inception of legal process predated the Travelers policy period\\nby decades, so the policy does not cover injuries for a claim of false arrest or\\nimprisonment. See W. PAGE KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON TORTS\\n(5th ed. 1984) § 120, at 888 (“If there is a false arrest claim, damages for that\\nclaim cover the time of detention up until issuance of process or arraignment,\\nbut not more.”). As the policy’s coverage for “personal injury” requires injury\\nrelated to those torts, it does not apply.\\n But unlike personal injury coverage, the focus of which is the list of\\ncovered causal torts, bodily injury coverage is not tethered to a list of causal\\nevents. In the Travelers policy, bodily injury includes any physical, mental,\\nand emotional harm—it is defined by the resulting harm, not its cause. See\\nRESTATEMENT OF LIABILITY INSURANCE § 33 cmt. b (Final Draft No. 2,\\napproved 2018) (using bodily injury coverage as an example of a “[c]ommon\\nharm-based trigger”). Whereas personal injury coverage “looks at the alleged\\ntort” to determine if there is coverage, “‘bodily injury’ looks at the damage to\\ndetermine if there is coverage.” 20 ERIC MILLS HOLMES, HOLMES’ APPLEMAN\\nON INSURANCE § 131.2, at 347 (2d ed. 2002). So we must look to the specific\\nharms that Bivens and Dixon alleged. See 1 ALLAN D. WINDT, INSURANCE\\nCLAIMS AND DISPUTES § 4:1, at 4-34 (5th ed. 2010) (“When coverage is not\\ndependent upon the existence of a certain designated ‘offense,’—e.g., personal\\ninjury or advertising injury—but upon the existence of a type of injury—e.g.,\\nbodily injury or property damage—regardless of the offense involved, one\\nshould focus on the factual allegations.”).\\n The estates allege that Bivens and Dixon suffered numerous,\\nindependent harms between 2005 and 2011. Here is a sampling:\\n 7\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\n • “From 2000 through 2010, Mr. Dixon suffered other ailments which\\n were caused by the conditions of his confinement, including staph\\n infections, chest pains, dizziness, convulsions, blurry vision,\\n infections, hematomas, rashes, coughing up blood, nausea, vomiting,\\n diarrhea, bursitis, urinary tract infections, and suicidal depression.”\\n • Dixon came up for parole in February 2006 and December 2009.\\n When his petitions for early release were denied, Dixon suffered\\n “mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, [and] emotional\\n distress . . . .”\\n • “Mr. Bivens . . . suffered with sinusitis, high blood pressure and\\n hypertension, dizziness, nausea, chest pains, abnormal heart rhythm,\\n shoulder injuries, and bursitis from 2005 through 2010 resulting from\\n substandard prison conditions.”\\n • “In 2007, Mr. Bivens contracted Hepatitis C, which was not properly\\n treated. This hepatitis in turn led to a number of medical problems,\\n including cirrhosis of the liver in 2008 followed by liver cancer.”\\n But for Forrest County’s alleged wrongful acts—coerced confessions,\\nfabricated evidence, and suppressed evidence 3—Bivens and Dixon would have\\nbeen free men and not suffered these physical and mental injures. Because\\nthe complaint alleges several distinct injuries occurring during the policy\\nperiod, Travelers has a duty to defend under the eight-corners rule.\\n B.\\n We now turn to the Scottsdale policy, which provided Forrest County\\nwith law enforcement liability coverage from November 1985 through\\nNovember 1986. Here are its relevant terms:\\n The Company will pay on behalf of the INSURED all sums which\\n the INSURED shall become legally obligated to pay as damages\\n because of WRONGFUL ACT(S) which result in:\\n A) PERSONAL INJURY\\n\\n\\n 3 To the extent that Travelers argues that Forrest County officers’ civil rights\\nviolations did not proximately cause Bivens’s and Dixon’s bodily injuries (because they were\\nmore proximately caused by prosecutors and prison officials), that argument goes to\\nindemnity, not the duty to defend. The policy imposes on Travelers the duty to defend even\\nclaims that are “groundless.” And Mississippi law imposes a duty to defend any claim that\\nfalls “arguably,” Am. Guarantee, 273 F.3d at 610, or “potentially,” Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d at 559,\\nwithin the policy’s coverage.\\n 8\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\n B) BODILY INJURY\\n C) PROPERTY DAMAGE\\n caused by an OCCURRENCE and arising out of the performance\\n of the INSURED’S duties to provide law enforcement and/or other\\n departmentally approved activities . . . .\\n DEFENSE, SETTLEMENT AND SUPPLEMENTARY\\n PAYMENTS\\n The Company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit\\n against the INSURED seeking damages on account of such\\n PERSONAL INJURY, BODILY INJURY, or PROPERTY\\n DAMAGE even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless,\\n false, or fraudulent . . . .\\n ...\\n DEFINITIONS\\n ...\\n PERSONAL INJURY—means:\\n ...\\n 3) False arrest, detention or imprisonment, or malicious\\n prosecution;\\n ...\\n if such offense is committed during the policy period.\\n ...\\n BODILY INJURY—bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by\\n any person which occurs during the policy period, including death\\n at any time resulting therefrom.\\n ...\\n OCCURRENCE—means an event, including continuous or\\n repeated exposure to conditions, which results in PERSONAL\\n INJURY, BODILY INJURY or PROPERTY DAMAGE sustained,\\n during the policy period, by any person or organization and arising\\n out of the performance of the INSURED’S law enforcement duties.\\n Like Travelers, Scottsdale does not dispute that Forrest County officers\\ncommitted wrongful acts while executing law enforcement duties. But we must\\nagain decide whether injuries suffered in prison during the policy period\\ntrigger a duty to defend even though prepolicy acts caused those injuries.\\n\\n 9\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\n Unlike Travelers’, Scottsdale’s policy is ambiguous on this question. It\\ndoes not require that a “wrongful act” occur during the policy period. But it\\ndoes require that covered injuries result from an “occurrence.” The policy’s\\ndefinition of “occurrence” includes the phrase “during the policy period,” but it\\nis not clear whether it means that the injury must occur during the policy\\nperiod, or that the occurrence must occur during the policy period.\\n The “nearest reasonable referent” canon helps resolve the ambiguity.\\n“When the syntax involves something other than a parallel series of nouns or\\nverbs, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies only to the\\nnearest reasonable referent.” ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING\\nLAW 152 (2012). The relevant portion of the policy’s definition of “occurrence”\\ncan be abbreviated as (1) an event, (2) that results in injury sustained,\\n(3) during the policy period. The postpositive modifier (“during the policy\\nperiod”) immediately follows the “injury sustained” term. So, applying the\\ncanon, the injury must occur during the policy period; the causal event can\\nprecede it.\\n A basic principle of insurance law points in the same direction as the\\nsyntactic rule. When a court “deems the terms of an insurance policy\\nambiguous or doubtful, it must interpret them most favorably to the insured\\nand against the insurer.” Centennial Ins. Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 149\\nF.3d 378, 382–83 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Caldwell v. Hartford Acc. & Indem.\\nCo., 160 So. 2d 209, 212–13 (Miss. 1964) (“The rule that the insurance policy\\nprepared by the insurer must be construed more strongly against the insurance\\ncompany, and that any fair doubt should be resolved in favor of the insured, is\\nso well-settled in the law of insurance that we hesitate to cite any cases.”).\\n Both the grammatical and insurance canons thus resolve the ambiguity\\nby interpreting the policy as providing the same coverage as Travelers’: If the\\n\\n\\n 10\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\nestates alleged that covered injuries occurred during the policy period,\\nScottsdale must defend.\\n And, again, the estates make the necessary allegations. The Scottsdale\\npolicy defines bodily injury to include bodily injury, sickness, and disease. The\\nestates’ complaint alleges that all three men suffered such injuries between\\nNovember 1985 and November 1986:\\n • Dixon “suffered bodily injuries, assaults and batteries, and numerous\\n other injuries in prison in 1985 and in subsequent years.”\\n • Ruffin “was infected with syphilis and herpes in 1984 and 1985. From\\n 1985 through 1988 he suffered severe rashes, abdominal pain,\\n nausea, and vomiting resulting from his exposure to detergents and\\n other chemicals used in the prison.”\\n • “From 1985 through 1987, Mr. Bivens was admitted to the hospital or\\n medical ward over a dozen times for asthma attacks, respiratory\\n distress, and bronchitis aggravated by prison conditions.”\\n Although Scottsdale’s duty to defend was not triggered by the ongoing\\nimprisonment, it was triggered by the discrete bodily injuries Bivens, Dixon,\\nand Ruffin suffered as a result of the County’s wrongful acts that framed them.\\nWe thus affirm the district court’s judgment that Scottsdale has a duty to\\ndefend.\\n\\n III.\\n We have resolved this case against Travelers and Scottsdale by applying\\nthe plain terms of their policies and, in Scottsdale’s case, established canons of\\ninterpretation. That is consistent with Mississippi law, which holds that an\\n“insurance company’s duty to defend its insureds derives neither from common\\nlaw nor statute, but rather from the provisions of its policy, that is, its\\ninsurance contract with its insured.” Baker Donelson Bearman & Caldwell,\\nP.C. v. Muirhead, 920 So. 2d 440, 450 (Miss. 2006).\\n We thus are not applying a “theory” of insurance coverage. Travelers\\nand Scottsdale devote substantial energy to arguing that Mississippi would not\\n\\n 11\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\nrecognize so-called “continuous trigger” or “multiple trigger” theories. We\\nagree that such extracontractual rules have no role to play. Under a\\ncontinuous trigger theory, “an insurance company has a duty to defend and\\nindemnify if it has issued a policy in effect at any time during the continuing\\ntort.” City of Erie, Pa. v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co., 109 F.3d 156, 164 (3d Cir.\\n1997). We do not hold that Forrest County’s torts were continuing. That is\\nwhy we do not find a duty to defend under the personal injury provision—the\\nfalse imprisonment tort ended with the institution of legal process. But the\\nestates allege bodily injuries during the policy periods that were distinct from\\nthe convictions themselves.\\n Closer to the mark, the insurers argue that siding with the estates would\\nrequire us to apply a multiple trigger theory. We do hold that coverage was\\ntriggered in more than one year by more than one injury. But we do so because\\nTravelers and Scottsdale agreed to policies that permit multiple triggers if\\nthere are different injuries, quite apart from any common law “multiple\\ntrigger” principle. A simple analogy may be useful. Say that one insurer\\npromises an apple farmer to pay for any bodily injury caused in 1985, so long\\nas it is caused by the farmer’s agricultural acts. Another insurer makes the\\nsame promise for 2010. If the farmer had planted a tree in 1979, and apples\\nfrom that tree fell and injured passersby in both 1985 and 2010, both policies\\nwould be triggered. The two injuries are distinct from one another despite\\nstemming from the same covered act. And it does not matter that the injuries\\narose years after the covered act. Reaching that same conclusion here is just\\na matter of enforcing the parties’ agreements, not a broader theory of insurance\\nlaw.\\n The cases Travelers and Scottsdale cite in support of a contrary result\\nfall into two buckets. The first and larger bucket of cases does not apply here\\nbecause they address act-based policies, not injury-based ones. See City of Erie,\\n 12\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\n109 F.3d at 158 (parties agreed that policies covered “liability for any act done\\nwhile the policy is in effect”); Sarsfield v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 335 F.\\nApp’x 63, 66 (1st Cir. 2009) (“This insurance applies to ‘wrongful act(s)’ which\\noccurs in the ‘coverage territory’ and during the policy period.”); TIG Ins. Co.\\nv. City of Elkhart, 122 F. Supp. 3d 795, 804 (N.D. Ind. 2015) (“caused by an\\nOCCURRENCE to which this policy applies during this POLICY PERIOD”);\\nIndian Harbor Ins. Co. v. City of Waukegan, 33 N.E.3d 613, 616 (Ill. Ct. App.\\n2015) (“The wrongful act(s) must occur during the policy period and within the\\npolicy territory.”); City of Lee’s Summit v. Missouri Pub. Entity Risk Mgmt.,\\n390 S.W.3d 214, 218 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (“caused by or arising out of . . . an\\nact, accident, event, during the coverage period”); Town of Newfane v. Gen. Star\\nNat’l Ins. Co., 14 A.D.3d 72, 75 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) (“caused by an offense . . .\\ncommitted . . . during the policy period”). In wrongful conviction cases, the\\nwrongful act is the one that causes the wrongful conviction; thus, act-based\\npolicies are usually triggered on or around the time of conviction. 4 That has\\nno bearing on injury-based policies like Travelers’ and Scottsdale’s.\\n The second bucket of cases (which also includes many from the first)\\naddresses personal injury, not bodily injury. See, e.g., Genesis Ins. Co. v. City\\nof Council Bluffs, 677 F.3d 806, 812, 815 (8th Cir. 2012) (malicious prosecution\\noccurred when charges were filed, so personal injury arose at that time);\\nChicago Ins. Co. v. City of Council Bluffs, 713 F.3d 963, 970–71 (8th Cir. 2013)\\n(same). We have already explained the difference between the two types of\\ncoverage: The completion of a tort triggers personal injury coverage when the\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 The estates do allege that Forrest County officials committed additional wrongful\\nacts during Travelers’ and Scottsdale’s policy periods by failing to come forward with\\nexculpatory evidence or admit their civil rights violations. But other courts have rejected\\nthis argument, holding that failure to admit past unconstitutional acts does not retrigger an\\nact-based policy. See, e.g., Indian Harbor, 33 N.E.3d at 623. We need not decide the question\\nbecause the Travelers and Scottsdale policies are injury-based rather than act-based.\\n 13\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\npolicy defines personal injury in terms of a cause of action. But the suffering\\nof a new harm—provided it is caused by a covered act—triggers bodily injury\\ncoverage, so long as the policy defines bodily injury without reference to the\\ntort that caused it.\\n We recognize that some wrongful conviction cases have applied a rule\\nthat even injury-based coverage is triggered only when the injury first\\nmanifests itself—a single, exclusive trigger. Genesis Ins., 677 F.3d at 815–16;\\nChicago Ins., 713 F.3d at 971; see also Coregis Ins. Co. v. City of Harrisburg,\\nNo. 1:03-CV-920, 2006 WL 860710, at *11 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2006); N. River\\nIns. Co. v. Broward Cty. Sherriff’s Office, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1289–90 (S.D.\\nFla. 2006); Idaho Counties Risk Mgmt. Program Underwriters v. Northland\\nIns. Cos., 205 P.3d 1220, 1226 (Idaho 2009). But those cases did not confront\\nthe allegations we have here of discrete bodily injuries beyond the harm of\\nincarceration itself. The majority in Chicago Insurance, for instance, rejected\\nthe idea that because “the period of time during which the two men were\\nimprisoned included” the policy period, they “clearly sustained damage” during\\nthe policy period. 713 F.3d at 974 (Bye, J., concurring in part and dissenting\\nin part). And the Coregis court clarified that the underlying plaintiff’s alleged\\nhumiliation and reputational damage did not “suggest that he has incurred\\ninjuries distinct from those he suffered as the result of his arrest, prosecution,\\nand ultimate conviction.” 2006 WL 860710, at *10, 12.\\n Given that the estates do allege distinct injuries, 5 not just a continuous\\ninjury beginning with incarceration and ending with exoneration and release,\\nMississippi law does not require us to graft onto the policy language the single-\\ntrigger rule Travelers and Scottsdale advocate. The cases they rely on say only\\n\\n\\n 5 Of course, for the County to obtain indemnity, the estates will need to prove that\\ndistinct bodily injuries occurred during the policy periods. But at this stage, it is enough that\\nthose injuries are alleged. See supra note 3.\\n 14\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\nthat the statute of limitations for professional negligence, when the alleged\\nnegligence results in wrongful conviction, runs from the negligent causal act,\\nnot exoneration and release. See Smith v. Sneed, 638 So. 2d 1252, 1256 (Miss.\\n1994); Stevens v. Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177, 1183 (Miss. 1993). But the Smith and\\nStevens analysis focuses on when the “unlawful acts” occurred, so Travelers’\\nand Scottsdale’s reliance on them is unavailing. See Smith, 638 So. 2d at 1256\\n(quoting Stevens, 615 So. 2d at 1183). As we have discussed at length, their\\npolicies are not triggered by unlawful acts, but by resulting injuries.\\n At bottom, Travelers and Scottsdale ask us to hold that that insurance\\ncoverage be triggered by a single moment of wrongful conduct, or a single\\nmoment of injury—even when the policy’s terms do not. If insurers want that\\nresult, they know how to bargain for it. Like the insurers in many of the cases\\ncited by Travelers and Scottsdale, four insurers won summary judgments in\\nthis case because they wrote policies requiring that the wrongful act occur\\nduring the policy period.\\n Another option is the so-called “deemer clause,” under which all\\nresultant injuries are deemed to have occurred simultaneously with the act\\nthat caused them. See RESTATEMENT OF LIABILITY INSURANCE § 33 cmt. e\\n(explaining that deemer clauses “define a triggering event to take place at a\\ndesignated time even when that event did not only take place at that time, or\\nperhaps not even at that time at all”). 6 Tellingly, Travelers bargained for just\\nsuch a clause in the policy at issue in this case, but only for property damage\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 From an insurer’s perspective, deemer clauses can be good or bad, depending on the\\nlikelihood that the insured will do something that could cause damage for years to come. A\\nsingle triggering event (the wrongful act or the first sign of damages) during the policy period\\ncan sign the insurer up to cover damages that may last well beyond its policy period—up to\\nits policy limits, anyway. But the insurer does not have to cover injuries for acts that occurred\\nprior to the policy period.\\n\\n 15\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\ncoverage: “We’ll consider all loss of use of . . . undamaged tangible property to\\nhappen at the time of the wrongful act which caused it.” It could have done\\nthe same for bodily injury coverage. Indeed, it did so in a law enforcement\\nliability policy issued to Forrest County for 2012–13: “All ‘bodily injury’ . . .\\ncaused by the same ‘wrongful act’ or ‘related wrongful acts’ will be deemed to\\noccur when the first part of such ‘bodily injury’ . . . occurs.” We must give effect\\nto the different bargain Travelers and Scottsdale struck in the earlier policies.\\n ***\\n “Insurance policies are contracts, and as such, they are to be enforced\\naccording to their provisions.” Noxubee Cty. School Dist. v. United Nat. Ins.\\nCo., 883 So. 2d 1159, 1166 (Miss. 2004). The provisions of the Travelers and\\nScottsdale policies cover bodily injuries occurring during the policy period.\\nBecause the estates’ complaint alleges those injuries during the relevant time\\nperiods, both insurers have a duty to defend Forrest County and its officers.\\nWe thus AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4401344/\", \"author_raw\": \"GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge:\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"HIGGINBOTHAM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SOUTHWICK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"COSTA"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624091/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY; The Travelers Indemnity Company of America; United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company; St. Paul Fire; Marine Insurance Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Ethel MITCHELL, Executrix of the Estate of Phillip Bivens; The Estate of Larry Ruffin ; The Estate of Bobby Ray Dixon; Laturas Smith; Carrie Strong, Defendants-Counter Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees v. Scottsdale Insurance Company Counter Defendant-Counter Plaintiff-Appellant\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-29\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nCase: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals\n Fifth Circuit\n\n FILED\n May 29, 2019\n No. 17-60291\n Lyle W. Cayce\n Clerk\nTHE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY; THE TRAVELERS\nINDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND\nGUARANTY COMPANY; ST. PAUL FIRE ; MARINE INSURANCE\nCOMPANY,\n\n Plaintiffs - Appellants\n\nv.\n\nETHEL MITCHELL, Executrix of the Estate of Phillip Bivens; THE ESTATE\nOF LARRY RUFFIN; THE ESTATE OF BOBBY RAY DIXON; LATURAS\nSMITH; CARRIE STRONG,\n\n Defendants - Counter Plaintiffs - Counter Defendants - Appellees\n\nv.\n\nSCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY\n\n Counter Defendant - Counter Plaintiff - Appellant\n\n\n\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court\n for the Southern District of Mississippi\n\n\nBefore HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK and COSTA, Circuit Judges.\nGREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge:\n Phillip Bivens, Bobby Ray Dixon, and Larry Ruffin spent a collective 83\nyears in prison for the rape and murder of a woman in Forrest County,\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\nMississippi. Their confessions were coerced and evidence against them\nfabricated. They were innocent.\n By the time DNA evidence exonerated them, Ruffin had died in prison\nwhile Dixon and Bivens had developed diseases that killed them not long after\nthey gained the freedom to which they were always entitled. Their estates filed\na civil rights lawsuit against Forrest County.\n The question in this separate case is whether two of the County’s law\nenforcement liability policies require the insurers to defend the civil rights suit.\nThe answer turns on whether the policies are triggered when injuries occur\nduring the policy period, even though the wrongful acts that caused the injuries\noccurred before the policy period. The district court held there is a duty to\ndefend. We agree.\n I.\n The first tragedy occurred in May 1979 when Eva Gail Patterson, a 25-\nyear-old mother of two, was raped and murdered in her home. Her two sons\nwatched her die. 1\n The second tragedy began when officers of the Forrest County Sherriff’s\nDepartment targeted Larry Ruffin for the crime. Ruffin was then an inmate\nat a restitution center, where he was working to compensate the victim of a\nminor theft. The day after the murder, Forrest County officers confronted\nhim—one threatened to kill him—then locked him in the Forrest County jail\nfor two days. Soon after, a Hattiesburg Police officer threatened another\ninmate at the restitution center with false charges unless he implicated Ruffin\nin the murder. Once armed with the fabricated statement, police arrested\nRuffin.\n\n\n 1 We draw our facts from the estates’ operative complaint because it determines\nwhether the insurers must defend. Auto Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d 557, 559\n(Miss. 2011).\n 2\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\n That evening, Forrest County and Hattiesburg officers “beat, punched,\nkicked, slapped, and hurled racial slurs and death threats at Larry Ruffin,\ndemanding that he confess to the crime.” It took seven hours to secure his\nconfession.\n The victim’s young son had told the police that there was only one\nperpetrator. But in the fall of 1980, as Ruffin’s trial was approaching, police\narrested Bobby Ray Dixon and Phillip Bivens. Dixon, who had previously been\narrested with Ruffin for theft, was mentally handicapped as a result of being\nkicked in the head by a horse as a child. After succumbing to beatings and\nthreats of the death penalty, he confessed, implicating himself, Ruffin, and\nBivens.\n Bivens’s wife was related to Ruffin’s girlfriend. Bivens was a native\nCalifornian who spent less than a year in Forrest County—but that year\nincluded May 1979. After being arrested in California and flown back to\nMississippi, he too was threatened with violence and death. He too confessed.\n After their coerced confessions, Bivens and Dixon pleaded guilty. Ruffin\nwas convicted at trial. All three got life sentences. In prison, they were the\nvictims of numerous assaults by other prisoners. Each developed physical\ninjuries and maladies, including Ruffin’s infection with syphilis and herpes in\n1984–85, and Bivens’s contraction of Hepatitis C in 2007. They filed\npostconviction appeals asserting their innocence, but each was rejected.\n Dixon contacted the Innocence Project in 2008, and the Project obtained\nDNA testing of the sperm from the victim’s rape kit. It matched the DNA\nprofile of Andrew Harris, who was then serving a life sentence for another rape\ncommitted shortly after the rape and murder for which Bivens, Dixon, and\nRuffin were incarcerated.\n Ruffin had been killed by an electrical shock eight years before he was\nexonerated. Dixon died shortly after being released on medical parole but five\n 3\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\nweeks before he was officially cleared. Bivens lived just three more years as a\nfree man.\n The estates sued Forrest County, the City of Hattiesburg, and several\nindividual officers for civil rights violations, including coercing confessions,\nfabricating evidence, withholding exculpatory evidence, and prosecuting\nwithout probable cause. Over the years, Forrest County had purchased a\nseries of law enforcement liability policies from various insurers. As relevant\nto this case, a Scottsdale Insurance Company policy was effective from\nNovember 1985 through November 1986, and St. Paul Fire and Marine\nInsurance Company policies were effective from February 2005 through\nFebruary 2011.\n Travelers Indemnity Company (which is responsible for the St. Paul\npolicies) sued for a declaratory judgment that it does not owe a duty to defend\nForrest County from the civil rights claims. The estates brought counterclaims\nagainst Scottsdale in the ensuing litigation. The district court rejected a duty\nto defend for a number of insurers with policies in effect during the period of\nincarceration. But, on cross-motions for summary judgment, it ruled that\nTravelers and Scottsdale do owe duties to defend. Those two insurers appeal.\n II.\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.\nAdmiral Ins. Co. v. Ford, 607 F.3d 420, 422 (5th Cir. 2010). The court’s\ninterpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law that we also review\nde novo. Id.\n Mississippi requires that insurance policies be interpreted “exactly as\nwritten,” so long as they are “clear and unambiguous.” George v. Mississippi\nFarm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 168 So. 2d 530, 531 (Miss. 1964). If the policy’s\nterms are ambiguous or doubtful, we interpret them “most favorably to the\n\n\n 4\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\ninsured and against the insurer.” Centennial Ins. Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental,\nInc., 149 F.3d 378, 382–83 (5th Cir. 1998).\n Mississippi applies the so-called eight corners rule to determine whether\nan insurer has a duty to defend a claim against its insured. That is, the\nquestion is resolved by comparing the four corners of the policy with the four\ncorners of the complaint. Auto Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d 557,\n559 (Miss. 2011). If the complaint states a claim that is “within or arguably\nwithin the scope of coverage provided by the policy,” the insurer must defend.\nAm. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co. v. 1906 Co., 273 F.3d 605, 610 (5th Cir. 2001);\nsee also Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d at 559 (explaining that insurers must defend\nclaims that could “potentially” be covered).\n A.\n We begin with the terms of the policies. And because their language\ndiffers, we discuss each separately.\n The Travelers policy provided Forrest County and its officers with law\nenforcement liability coverage from February 2005 through February 2011. Its\nrelevant terms follow:\n Law enforcement liability. We’ll pay amounts any protected\n person is legally required to pay as damages for covered injury or\n damage that:\n • results from law enforcement activities or operations by or\n for you;\n • happens while this agreement is in effect; and\n • is caused by a wrongful act that is committed while\n conducting law enforcement operations.\n ...\n Injury or damage means bodily injury, personal injury, or property\n damage.\n Bodily injury means any harm to the health of other persons. It\n includes care, loss of services, or death that results from such\n harm.\n Harm includes any of the following:\n 5\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\n • Physical harm, sickness, or disease.\n • Mental anguish, distress, injury, or illness.\n • Emotional distress.\n • Humiliation.\n Personal Injury means injury, other than bodily injury, caused by\n any of the following wrongful acts:\n • False arrest, detention, or imprisonment.\n • Malicious prosecution.\n ...\n Travelers does not dispute that Bivens’s and Dixon’s 2 injuries were\ncaused by wrongful acts, or that some of those wrongful acts were committed\nby Forrest County officials engaged in law enforcement activities. The issue is\nwhether the injuries they suffered between 2005 and 2011 triggered a duty to\ndefend, even though the wrongful causal acts occurred decades prior.\n The Travelers policy provides coverage for “injury or damage that\n. . . happens while this agreement is in effect.” That temporal requirement\napplies only to the injury. The two other requirements for coverage—that the\ninjury resulted from the insured’s “law enforcement activities” and was “caused\nby a wrongful act that is committed while conducting law enforcement\noperations”—do not have a temporal limitation. Travelers thus bargained for\nan injury-based trigger of coverage, not an act-based trigger. Under the\npolicy’s plain terms, Travelers must defend any claim in which covered injuries\noccurred between 2005 and 2011, regardless of when the wrongful causal act\noccurred.\n Travelers argues that Bivens and Dixon could not have been injured by\nfalse imprisonment 25 years after their convictions because false\nimprisonment ends with the inception of legal process. See Wallace v. Kato,\n549 U.S. 384, 389 (2007) (“Reflective of the fact that false imprisonment\n\n\n\n 2 Ruffin died in 2002, before the Travelers policy took effect.\n 6\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\nconsists of detention without legal process, a false imprisonment ends once the\nvictim becomes held pursuant to such process . . . .” (emphasis in original)). We\nagree that Bivens’s and Dixon’s continued imprisonment, alone, did not trigger\ncoverage. The inception of legal process predated the Travelers policy period\nby decades, so the policy does not cover injuries for a claim of false arrest or\nimprisonment. See W. PAGE KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON TORTS\n(5th ed. 1984) § 120, at 888 (“If there is a false arrest claim, damages for that\nclaim cover the time of detention up until issuance of process or arraignment,\nbut not more.”). As the policy’s coverage for “personal injury” requires injury\nrelated to those torts, it does not apply.\n But unlike personal injury coverage, the focus of which is the list of\ncovered causal torts, bodily injury coverage is not tethered to a list of causal\nevents. In the Travelers policy, bodily injury includes any physical, mental,\nand emotional harm—it is defined by the resulting harm, not its cause. See\nRESTATEMENT OF LIABILITY INSURANCE § 33 cmt. b (Final Draft No. 2,\napproved 2018) (using bodily injury coverage as an example of a “[c]ommon\nharm-based trigger”). Whereas personal injury coverage “looks at the alleged\ntort” to determine if there is coverage, “‘bodily injury’ looks at the damage to\ndetermine if there is coverage.” 20 ERIC MILLS HOLMES, HOLMES’ APPLEMAN\nON INSURANCE § 131.2, at 347 (2d ed. 2002). So we must look to the specific\nharms that Bivens and Dixon alleged. See 1 ALLAN D. WINDT, INSURANCE\nCLAIMS AND DISPUTES § 4:1, at 4-34 (5th ed. 2010) (“When coverage is not\ndependent upon the existence of a certain designated ‘offense,’—e.g., personal\ninjury or advertising injury—but upon the existence of a type of injury—e.g.,\nbodily injury or property damage—regardless of the offense involved, one\nshould focus on the factual allegations.”).\n The estates allege that Bivens and Dixon suffered numerous,\nindependent harms between 2005 and 2011. Here is a sampling:\n 7\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\n • “From 2000 through 2010, Mr. Dixon suffered other ailments which\n were caused by the conditions of his confinement, including staph\n infections, chest pains, dizziness, convulsions, blurry vision,\n infections, hematomas, rashes, coughing up blood, nausea, vomiting,\n diarrhea, bursitis, urinary tract infections, and suicidal depression.”\n • Dixon came up for parole in February 2006 and December 2009.\n When his petitions for early release were denied, Dixon suffered\n “mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, [and] emotional\n distress . . . .”\n • “Mr. Bivens . . . suffered with sinusitis, high blood pressure and\n hypertension, dizziness, nausea, chest pains, abnormal heart rhythm,\n shoulder injuries, and bursitis from 2005 through 2010 resulting from\n substandard prison conditions.”\n • “In 2007, Mr. Bivens contracted Hepatitis C, which was not properly\n treated. This hepatitis in turn led to a number of medical problems,\n including cirrhosis of the liver in 2008 followed by liver cancer.”\n But for Forrest County’s alleged wrongful acts—coerced confessions,\nfabricated evidence, and suppressed evidence 3—Bivens and Dixon would have\nbeen free men and not suffered these physical and mental injures. Because\nthe complaint alleges several distinct injuries occurring during the policy\nperiod, Travelers has a duty to defend under the eight-corners rule.\n B.\n We now turn to the Scottsdale policy, which provided Forrest County\nwith law enforcement liability coverage from November 1985 through\nNovember 1986. Here are its relevant terms:\n The Company will pay on behalf of the INSURED all sums which\n the INSURED shall become legally obligated to pay as damages\n because of WRONGFUL ACT(S) which result in:\n A) PERSONAL INJURY\n\n\n 3 To the extent that Travelers argues that Forrest County officers’ civil rights\nviolations did not proximately cause Bivens’s and Dixon’s bodily injuries (because they were\nmore proximately caused by prosecutors and prison officials), that argument goes to\nindemnity, not the duty to defend. The policy imposes on Travelers the duty to defend even\nclaims that are “groundless.” And Mississippi law imposes a duty to defend any claim that\nfalls “arguably,” Am. Guarantee, 273 F.3d at 610, or “potentially,” Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d at 559,\nwithin the policy’s coverage.\n 8\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\n B) BODILY INJURY\n C) PROPERTY DAMAGE\n caused by an OCCURRENCE and arising out of the performance\n of the INSURED’S duties to provide law enforcement and/or other\n departmentally approved activities . . . .\n DEFENSE, SETTLEMENT AND SUPPLEMENTARY\n PAYMENTS\n The Company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit\n against the INSURED seeking damages on account of such\n PERSONAL INJURY, BODILY INJURY, or PROPERTY\n DAMAGE even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless,\n false, or fraudulent . . . .\n ...\n DEFINITIONS\n ...\n PERSONAL INJURY—means:\n ...\n 3) False arrest, detention or imprisonment, or malicious\n prosecution;\n ...\n if such offense is committed during the policy period.\n ...\n BODILY INJURY—bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by\n any person which occurs during the policy period, including death\n at any time resulting therefrom.\n ...\n OCCURRENCE—means an event, including continuous or\n repeated exposure to conditions, which results in PERSONAL\n INJURY, BODILY INJURY or PROPERTY DAMAGE sustained,\n during the policy period, by any person or organization and arising\n out of the performance of the INSURED’S law enforcement duties.\n Like Travelers, Scottsdale does not dispute that Forrest County officers\ncommitted wrongful acts while executing law enforcement duties. But we must\nagain decide whether injuries suffered in prison during the policy period\ntrigger a duty to defend even though prepolicy acts caused those injuries.\n\n 9\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\n Unlike Travelers’, Scottsdale’s policy is ambiguous on this question. It\ndoes not require that a “wrongful act” occur during the policy period. But it\ndoes require that covered injuries result from an “occurrence.” The policy’s\ndefinition of “occurrence” includes the phrase “during the policy period,” but it\nis not clear whether it means that the injury must occur during the policy\nperiod, or that the occurrence must occur during the policy period.\n The “nearest reasonable referent” canon helps resolve the ambiguity.\n“When the syntax involves something other than a parallel series of nouns or\nverbs, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies only to the\nnearest reasonable referent.” ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING\nLAW 152 (2012). The relevant portion of the policy’s definition of “occurrence”\ncan be abbreviated as (1) an event, (2) that results in injury sustained,\n(3) during the policy period. The postpositive modifier (“during the policy\nperiod”) immediately follows the “injury sustained” term. So, applying the\ncanon, the injury must occur during the policy period; the causal event can\nprecede it.\n A basic principle of insurance law points in the same direction as the\nsyntactic rule. When a court “deems the terms of an insurance policy\nambiguous or doubtful, it must interpret them most favorably to the insured\nand against the insurer.” Centennial Ins. Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 149\nF.3d 378, 382–83 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Caldwell v. Hartford Acc. & Indem.\nCo., 160 So. 2d 209, 212–13 (Miss. 1964) (“The rule that the insurance policy\nprepared by the insurer must be construed more strongly against the insurance\ncompany, and that any fair doubt should be resolved in favor of the insured, is\nso well-settled in the law of insurance that we hesitate to cite any cases.”).\n Both the grammatical and insurance canons thus resolve the ambiguity\nby interpreting the policy as providing the same coverage as Travelers’: If the\n\n\n 10\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\nestates alleged that covered injuries occurred during the policy period,\nScottsdale must defend.\n And, again, the estates make the necessary allegations. The Scottsdale\npolicy defines bodily injury to include bodily injury, sickness, and disease. The\nestates’ complaint alleges that all three men suffered such injuries between\nNovember 1985 and November 1986:\n • Dixon “suffered bodily injuries, assaults and batteries, and numerous\n other injuries in prison in 1985 and in subsequent years.”\n • Ruffin “was infected with syphilis and herpes in 1984 and 1985. From\n 1985 through 1988 he suffered severe rashes, abdominal pain,\n nausea, and vomiting resulting from his exposure to detergents and\n other chemicals used in the prison.”\n • “From 1985 through 1987, Mr. Bivens was admitted to the hospital or\n medical ward over a dozen times for asthma attacks, respiratory\n distress, and bronchitis aggravated by prison conditions.”\n Although Scottsdale’s duty to defend was not triggered by the ongoing\nimprisonment, it was triggered by the discrete bodily injuries Bivens, Dixon,\nand Ruffin suffered as a result of the County’s wrongful acts that framed them.\nWe thus affirm the district court’s judgment that Scottsdale has a duty to\ndefend.\n\n III.\n We have resolved this case against Travelers and Scottsdale by applying\nthe plain terms of their policies and, in Scottsdale’s case, established canons of\ninterpretation. That is consistent with Mississippi law, which holds that an\n“insurance company’s duty to defend its insureds derives neither from common\nlaw nor statute, but rather from the provisions of its policy, that is, its\ninsurance contract with its insured.” Baker Donelson Bearman & Caldwell,\nP.C. v. Muirhead, 920 So. 2d 440, 450 (Miss. 2006).\n We thus are not applying a “theory” of insurance coverage. Travelers\nand Scottsdale devote substantial energy to arguing that Mississippi would not\n\n 11\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\nrecognize so-called “continuous trigger” or “multiple trigger” theories. We\nagree that such extracontractual rules have no role to play. Under a\ncontinuous trigger theory, “an insurance company has a duty to defend and\nindemnify if it has issued a policy in effect at any time during the continuing\ntort.” City of Erie, Pa. v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co., 109 F.3d 156, 164 (3d Cir.\n1997). We do not hold that Forrest County’s torts were continuing. That is\nwhy we do not find a duty to defend under the personal injury provision—the\nfalse imprisonment tort ended with the institution of legal process. But the\nestates allege bodily injuries during the policy periods that were distinct from\nthe convictions themselves.\n Closer to the mark, the insurers argue that siding with the estates would\nrequire us to apply a multiple trigger theory. We do hold that coverage was\ntriggered in more than one year by more than one injury. But we do so because\nTravelers and Scottsdale agreed to policies that permit multiple triggers if\nthere are different injuries, quite apart from any common law “multiple\ntrigger” principle. A simple analogy may be useful. Say that one insurer\npromises an apple farmer to pay for any bodily injury caused in 1985, so long\nas it is caused by the farmer’s agricultural acts. Another insurer makes the\nsame promise for 2010. If the farmer had planted a tree in 1979, and apples\nfrom that tree fell and injured passersby in both 1985 and 2010, both policies\nwould be triggered. The two injuries are distinct from one another despite\nstemming from the same covered act. And it does not matter that the injuries\narose years after the covered act. Reaching that same conclusion here is just\na matter of enforcing the parties’ agreements, not a broader theory of insurance\nlaw.\n The cases Travelers and Scottsdale cite in support of a contrary result\nfall into two buckets. The first and larger bucket of cases does not apply here\nbecause they address act-based policies, not injury-based ones. See City of Erie,\n 12\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\n109 F.3d at 158 (parties agreed that policies covered “liability for any act done\nwhile the policy is in effect”); Sarsfield v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 335 F.\nApp’x 63, 66 (1st Cir. 2009) (“This insurance applies to ‘wrongful act(s)’ which\noccurs in the ‘coverage territory’ and during the policy period.”); TIG Ins. Co.\nv. City of Elkhart, 122 F. Supp. 3d 795, 804 (N.D. Ind. 2015) (“caused by an\nOCCURRENCE to which this policy applies during this POLICY PERIOD”);\nIndian Harbor Ins. Co. v. City of Waukegan, 33 N.E.3d 613, 616 (Ill. Ct. App.\n2015) (“The wrongful act(s) must occur during the policy period and within the\npolicy territory.”); City of Lee’s Summit v. Missouri Pub. Entity Risk Mgmt.,\n390 S.W.3d 214, 218 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (“caused by or arising out of . . . an\nact, accident, event, during the coverage period”); Town of Newfane v. Gen. Star\nNat’l Ins. Co., 14 A.D.3d 72, 75 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) (“caused by an offense . . .\ncommitted . . . during the policy period”). In wrongful conviction cases, the\nwrongful act is the one that causes the wrongful conviction; thus, act-based\npolicies are usually triggered on or around the time of conviction. 4 That has\nno bearing on injury-based policies like Travelers’ and Scottsdale’s.\n The second bucket of cases (which also includes many from the first)\naddresses personal injury, not bodily injury. See, e.g., Genesis Ins. Co. v. City\nof Council Bluffs, 677 F.3d 806, 812, 815 (8th Cir. 2012) (malicious prosecution\noccurred when charges were filed, so personal injury arose at that time);\nChicago Ins. Co. v. City of Council Bluffs, 713 F.3d 963, 970–71 (8th Cir. 2013)\n(same). We have already explained the difference between the two types of\ncoverage: The completion of a tort triggers personal injury coverage when the\n\n\n\n 4 The estates do allege that Forrest County officials committed additional wrongful\nacts during Travelers’ and Scottsdale’s policy periods by failing to come forward with\nexculpatory evidence or admit their civil rights violations. But other courts have rejected\nthis argument, holding that failure to admit past unconstitutional acts does not retrigger an\nact-based policy. See, e.g., Indian Harbor, 33 N.E.3d at 623. We need not decide the question\nbecause the Travelers and Scottsdale policies are injury-based rather than act-based.\n 13\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\npolicy defines personal injury in terms of a cause of action. But the suffering\nof a new harm—provided it is caused by a covered act—triggers bodily injury\ncoverage, so long as the policy defines bodily injury without reference to the\ntort that caused it.\n We recognize that some wrongful conviction cases have applied a rule\nthat even injury-based coverage is triggered only when the injury first\nmanifests itself—a single, exclusive trigger. Genesis Ins., 677 F.3d at 815–16;\nChicago Ins., 713 F.3d at 971; see also Coregis Ins. Co. v. City of Harrisburg,\nNo. 1:03-CV-920, 2006 WL 860710, at *11 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2006); N. River\nIns. Co. v. Broward Cty. Sherriff’s Office, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1289–90 (S.D.\nFla. 2006); Idaho Counties Risk Mgmt. Program Underwriters v. Northland\nIns. Cos., 205 P.3d 1220, 1226 (Idaho 2009). But those cases did not confront\nthe allegations we have here of discrete bodily injuries beyond the harm of\nincarceration itself. The majority in Chicago Insurance, for instance, rejected\nthe idea that because “the period of time during which the two men were\nimprisoned included” the policy period, they “clearly sustained damage” during\nthe policy period. 713 F.3d at 974 (Bye, J., concurring in part and dissenting\nin part). And the Coregis court clarified that the underlying plaintiff’s alleged\nhumiliation and reputational damage did not “suggest that he has incurred\ninjuries distinct from those he suffered as the result of his arrest, prosecution,\nand ultimate conviction.” 2006 WL 860710, at *10, 12.\n Given that the estates do allege distinct injuries, 5 not just a continuous\ninjury beginning with incarceration and ending with exoneration and release,\nMississippi law does not require us to graft onto the policy language the single-\ntrigger rule Travelers and Scottsdale advocate. The cases they rely on say only\n\n\n 5 Of course, for the County to obtain indemnity, the estates will need to prove that\ndistinct bodily injuries occurred during the policy periods. But at this stage, it is enough that\nthose injuries are alleged. See supra note 3.\n 14\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\nthat the statute of limitations for professional negligence, when the alleged\nnegligence results in wrongful conviction, runs from the negligent causal act,\nnot exoneration and release. See Smith v. Sneed, 638 So. 2d 1252, 1256 (Miss.\n1994); Stevens v. Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177, 1183 (Miss. 1993). But the Smith and\nStevens analysis focuses on when the “unlawful acts” occurred, so Travelers’\nand Scottsdale’s reliance on them is unavailing. See Smith, 638 So. 2d at 1256\n(quoting Stevens, 615 So. 2d at 1183). As we have discussed at length, their\npolicies are not triggered by unlawful acts, but by resulting injuries.\n At bottom, Travelers and Scottsdale ask us to hold that that insurance\ncoverage be triggered by a single moment of wrongful conduct, or a single\nmoment of injury—even when the policy’s terms do not. If insurers want that\nresult, they know how to bargain for it. Like the insurers in many of the cases\ncited by Travelers and Scottsdale, four insurers won summary judgments in\nthis case because they wrote policies requiring that the wrongful act occur\nduring the policy period.\n Another option is the so-called “deemer clause,” under which all\nresultant injuries are deemed to have occurred simultaneously with the act\nthat caused them. See RESTATEMENT OF LIABILITY INSURANCE § 33 cmt. e\n(explaining that deemer clauses “define a triggering event to take place at a\ndesignated time even when that event did not only take place at that time, or\nperhaps not even at that time at all”). 6 Tellingly, Travelers bargained for just\nsuch a clause in the policy at issue in this case, but only for property damage\n\n\n\n 6 From an insurer’s perspective, deemer clauses can be good or bad, depending on the\nlikelihood that the insured will do something that could cause damage for years to come. A\nsingle triggering event (the wrongful act or the first sign of damages) during the policy period\ncan sign the insurer up to cover damages that may last well beyond its policy period—up to\nits policy limits, anyway. But the insurer does not have to cover injuries for acts that occurred\nprior to the policy period.\n\n 15\n\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-60291\ncoverage: “We’ll consider all loss of use of . . . undamaged tangible property to\nhappen at the time of the wrongful act which caused it.” It could have done\nthe same for bodily injury coverage. Indeed, it did so in a law enforcement\nliability policy issued to Forrest County for 2012–13: “All ‘bodily injury’ . . .\ncaused by the same ‘wrongful act’ or ‘related wrongful acts’ will be deemed to\noccur when the first part of such ‘bodily injury’ . . . occurs.” We must give effect\nto the different bargain Travelers and Scottsdale struck in the earlier policies.\n ***\n “Insurance policies are contracts, and as such, they are to be enforced\naccording to their provisions.” Noxubee Cty. School Dist. v. United Nat. Ins.\nCo., 883 So. 2d 1159, 1166 (Miss. 2004). The provisions of the Travelers and\nScottsdale policies cover bodily injuries occurring during the policy period.\nBecause the estates’ complaint alleges those injuries during the relevant time\nperiods, both insurers have a duty to defend Forrest County and its officers.\nWe thus AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY; The Travelers Indemnity Company of America; United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company; St. Paul Fire; Marine Insurance Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Ethel MITCHELL, Executrix of the Estate of Phillip Bivens; The Estate of Larry Ruffin ; The Estate of Bobby Ray Dixon; Laturas Smith; Carrie Strong, Defendants-Counter Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees v. Scottsdale Insurance Company Counter Defendant-Counter Plaintiff-Appellant\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-29\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nCase: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n FILED\\n May 29, 2019\\n No. 17-60291\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\n Clerk\\nTHE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY; THE TRAVELERS\\nINDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND\\nGUARANTY COMPANY; ST. PAUL FIRE ; MARINE INSURANCE\\nCOMPANY,\\n\\n Plaintiffs - Appellants\\n\\nv.\\n\\nETHEL MITCHELL, Executrix of the Estate of Phillip Bivens; THE ESTATE\\nOF LARRY RUFFIN; THE ESTATE OF BOBBY RAY DIXON; LATURAS\\nSMITH; CARRIE STRONG,\\n\\n Defendants - Counter Plaintiffs - Counter Defendants - Appellees\\n\\nv.\\n\\nSCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY\\n\\n Counter Defendant - Counter Plaintiff - Appellant\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Mississippi\\n\\n\\nBefore HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK and COSTA, Circuit Judges.\\nGREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge:\\n Phillip Bivens, Bobby Ray Dixon, and Larry Ruffin spent a collective 83\\nyears in prison for the rape and murder of a woman in Forrest County,\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\nMississippi. Their confessions were coerced and evidence against them\\nfabricated. They were innocent.\\n By the time DNA evidence exonerated them, Ruffin had died in prison\\nwhile Dixon and Bivens had developed diseases that killed them not long after\\nthey gained the freedom to which they were always entitled. Their estates filed\\na civil rights lawsuit against Forrest County.\\n The question in this separate case is whether two of the County’s law\\nenforcement liability policies require the insurers to defend the civil rights suit.\\nThe answer turns on whether the policies are triggered when injuries occur\\nduring the policy period, even though the wrongful acts that caused the injuries\\noccurred before the policy period. The district court held there is a duty to\\ndefend. We agree.\\n I.\\n The first tragedy occurred in May 1979 when Eva Gail Patterson, a 25-\\nyear-old mother of two, was raped and murdered in her home. Her two sons\\nwatched her die. 1\\n The second tragedy began when officers of the Forrest County Sherriff’s\\nDepartment targeted Larry Ruffin for the crime. Ruffin was then an inmate\\nat a restitution center, where he was working to compensate the victim of a\\nminor theft. The day after the murder, Forrest County officers confronted\\nhim—one threatened to kill him—then locked him in the Forrest County jail\\nfor two days. Soon after, a Hattiesburg Police officer threatened another\\ninmate at the restitution center with false charges unless he implicated Ruffin\\nin the murder. Once armed with the fabricated statement, police arrested\\nRuffin.\\n\\n\\n 1 We draw our facts from the estates’ operative complaint because it determines\\nwhether the insurers must defend. Auto Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d 557, 559\\n(Miss. 2011).\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\n That evening, Forrest County and Hattiesburg officers “beat, punched,\\nkicked, slapped, and hurled racial slurs and death threats at Larry Ruffin,\\ndemanding that he confess to the crime.” It took seven hours to secure his\\nconfession.\\n The victim’s young son had told the police that there was only one\\nperpetrator. But in the fall of 1980, as Ruffin’s trial was approaching, police\\narrested Bobby Ray Dixon and Phillip Bivens. Dixon, who had previously been\\narrested with Ruffin for theft, was mentally handicapped as a result of being\\nkicked in the head by a horse as a child. After succumbing to beatings and\\nthreats of the death penalty, he confessed, implicating himself, Ruffin, and\\nBivens.\\n Bivens’s wife was related to Ruffin’s girlfriend. Bivens was a native\\nCalifornian who spent less than a year in Forrest County—but that year\\nincluded May 1979. After being arrested in California and flown back to\\nMississippi, he too was threatened with violence and death. He too confessed.\\n After their coerced confessions, Bivens and Dixon pleaded guilty. Ruffin\\nwas convicted at trial. All three got life sentences. In prison, they were the\\nvictims of numerous assaults by other prisoners. Each developed physical\\ninjuries and maladies, including Ruffin’s infection with syphilis and herpes in\\n1984–85, and Bivens’s contraction of Hepatitis C in 2007. They filed\\npostconviction appeals asserting their innocence, but each was rejected.\\n Dixon contacted the Innocence Project in 2008, and the Project obtained\\nDNA testing of the sperm from the victim’s rape kit. It matched the DNA\\nprofile of Andrew Harris, who was then serving a life sentence for another rape\\ncommitted shortly after the rape and murder for which Bivens, Dixon, and\\nRuffin were incarcerated.\\n Ruffin had been killed by an electrical shock eight years before he was\\nexonerated. Dixon died shortly after being released on medical parole but five\\n 3\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\nweeks before he was officially cleared. Bivens lived just three more years as a\\nfree man.\\n The estates sued Forrest County, the City of Hattiesburg, and several\\nindividual officers for civil rights violations, including coercing confessions,\\nfabricating evidence, withholding exculpatory evidence, and prosecuting\\nwithout probable cause. Over the years, Forrest County had purchased a\\nseries of law enforcement liability policies from various insurers. As relevant\\nto this case, a Scottsdale Insurance Company policy was effective from\\nNovember 1985 through November 1986, and St. Paul Fire and Marine\\nInsurance Company policies were effective from February 2005 through\\nFebruary 2011.\\n Travelers Indemnity Company (which is responsible for the St. Paul\\npolicies) sued for a declaratory judgment that it does not owe a duty to defend\\nForrest County from the civil rights claims. The estates brought counterclaims\\nagainst Scottsdale in the ensuing litigation. The district court rejected a duty\\nto defend for a number of insurers with policies in effect during the period of\\nincarceration. But, on cross-motions for summary judgment, it ruled that\\nTravelers and Scottsdale do owe duties to defend. Those two insurers appeal.\\n II.\\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.\\nAdmiral Ins. Co. v. Ford, 607 F.3d 420, 422 (5th Cir. 2010). The court’s\\ninterpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law that we also review\\nde novo. Id.\\n Mississippi requires that insurance policies be interpreted “exactly as\\nwritten,” so long as they are “clear and unambiguous.” George v. Mississippi\\nFarm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 168 So. 2d 530, 531 (Miss. 1964). If the policy’s\\nterms are ambiguous or doubtful, we interpret them “most favorably to the\\n\\n\\n 4\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\ninsured and against the insurer.” Centennial Ins. Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental,\\nInc., 149 F.3d 378, 382–83 (5th Cir. 1998).\\n Mississippi applies the so-called eight corners rule to determine whether\\nan insurer has a duty to defend a claim against its insured. That is, the\\nquestion is resolved by comparing the four corners of the policy with the four\\ncorners of the complaint. Auto Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d 557,\\n559 (Miss. 2011). If the complaint states a claim that is “within or arguably\\nwithin the scope of coverage provided by the policy,” the insurer must defend.\\nAm. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co. v. 1906 Co., 273 F.3d 605, 610 (5th Cir. 2001);\\nsee also Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d at 559 (explaining that insurers must defend\\nclaims that could “potentially” be covered).\\n A.\\n We begin with the terms of the policies. And because their language\\ndiffers, we discuss each separately.\\n The Travelers policy provided Forrest County and its officers with law\\nenforcement liability coverage from February 2005 through February 2011. Its\\nrelevant terms follow:\\n Law enforcement liability. We’ll pay amounts any protected\\n person is legally required to pay as damages for covered injury or\\n damage that:\\n • results from law enforcement activities or operations by or\\n for you;\\n • happens while this agreement is in effect; and\\n • is caused by a wrongful act that is committed while\\n conducting law enforcement operations.\\n ...\\n Injury or damage means bodily injury, personal injury, or property\\n damage.\\n Bodily injury means any harm to the health of other persons. It\\n includes care, loss of services, or death that results from such\\n harm.\\n Harm includes any of the following:\\n 5\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\n • Physical harm, sickness, or disease.\\n • Mental anguish, distress, injury, or illness.\\n • Emotional distress.\\n • Humiliation.\\n Personal Injury means injury, other than bodily injury, caused by\\n any of the following wrongful acts:\\n • False arrest, detention, or imprisonment.\\n • Malicious prosecution.\\n ...\\n Travelers does not dispute that Bivens’s and Dixon’s 2 injuries were\\ncaused by wrongful acts, or that some of those wrongful acts were committed\\nby Forrest County officials engaged in law enforcement activities. The issue is\\nwhether the injuries they suffered between 2005 and 2011 triggered a duty to\\ndefend, even though the wrongful causal acts occurred decades prior.\\n The Travelers policy provides coverage for “injury or damage that\\n. . . happens while this agreement is in effect.” That temporal requirement\\napplies only to the injury. The two other requirements for coverage—that the\\ninjury resulted from the insured’s “law enforcement activities” and was “caused\\nby a wrongful act that is committed while conducting law enforcement\\noperations”—do not have a temporal limitation. Travelers thus bargained for\\nan injury-based trigger of coverage, not an act-based trigger. Under the\\npolicy’s plain terms, Travelers must defend any claim in which covered injuries\\noccurred between 2005 and 2011, regardless of when the wrongful causal act\\noccurred.\\n Travelers argues that Bivens and Dixon could not have been injured by\\nfalse imprisonment 25 years after their convictions because false\\nimprisonment ends with the inception of legal process. See Wallace v. Kato,\\n549 U.S. 384, 389 (2007) (“Reflective of the fact that false imprisonment\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Ruffin died in 2002, before the Travelers policy took effect.\\n 6\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\nconsists of detention without legal process, a false imprisonment ends once the\\nvictim becomes held pursuant to such process . . . .” (emphasis in original)). We\\nagree that Bivens’s and Dixon’s continued imprisonment, alone, did not trigger\\ncoverage. The inception of legal process predated the Travelers policy period\\nby decades, so the policy does not cover injuries for a claim of false arrest or\\nimprisonment. See W. PAGE KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON TORTS\\n(5th ed. 1984) § 120, at 888 (“If there is a false arrest claim, damages for that\\nclaim cover the time of detention up until issuance of process or arraignment,\\nbut not more.”). As the policy’s coverage for “personal injury” requires injury\\nrelated to those torts, it does not apply.\\n But unlike personal injury coverage, the focus of which is the list of\\ncovered causal torts, bodily injury coverage is not tethered to a list of causal\\nevents. In the Travelers policy, bodily injury includes any physical, mental,\\nand emotional harm—it is defined by the resulting harm, not its cause. See\\nRESTATEMENT OF LIABILITY INSURANCE § 33 cmt. b (Final Draft No. 2,\\napproved 2018) (using bodily injury coverage as an example of a “[c]ommon\\nharm-based trigger”). Whereas personal injury coverage “looks at the alleged\\ntort” to determine if there is coverage, “‘bodily injury’ looks at the damage to\\ndetermine if there is coverage.” 20 ERIC MILLS HOLMES, HOLMES’ APPLEMAN\\nON INSURANCE § 131.2, at 347 (2d ed. 2002). So we must look to the specific\\nharms that Bivens and Dixon alleged. See 1 ALLAN D. WINDT, INSURANCE\\nCLAIMS AND DISPUTES § 4:1, at 4-34 (5th ed. 2010) (“When coverage is not\\ndependent upon the existence of a certain designated ‘offense,’—e.g., personal\\ninjury or advertising injury—but upon the existence of a type of injury—e.g.,\\nbodily injury or property damage—regardless of the offense involved, one\\nshould focus on the factual allegations.”).\\n The estates allege that Bivens and Dixon suffered numerous,\\nindependent harms between 2005 and 2011. Here is a sampling:\\n 7\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\n • “From 2000 through 2010, Mr. Dixon suffered other ailments which\\n were caused by the conditions of his confinement, including staph\\n infections, chest pains, dizziness, convulsions, blurry vision,\\n infections, hematomas, rashes, coughing up blood, nausea, vomiting,\\n diarrhea, bursitis, urinary tract infections, and suicidal depression.”\\n • Dixon came up for parole in February 2006 and December 2009.\\n When his petitions for early release were denied, Dixon suffered\\n “mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, [and] emotional\\n distress . . . .”\\n • “Mr. Bivens . . . suffered with sinusitis, high blood pressure and\\n hypertension, dizziness, nausea, chest pains, abnormal heart rhythm,\\n shoulder injuries, and bursitis from 2005 through 2010 resulting from\\n substandard prison conditions.”\\n • “In 2007, Mr. Bivens contracted Hepatitis C, which was not properly\\n treated. This hepatitis in turn led to a number of medical problems,\\n including cirrhosis of the liver in 2008 followed by liver cancer.”\\n But for Forrest County’s alleged wrongful acts—coerced confessions,\\nfabricated evidence, and suppressed evidence 3—Bivens and Dixon would have\\nbeen free men and not suffered these physical and mental injures. Because\\nthe complaint alleges several distinct injuries occurring during the policy\\nperiod, Travelers has a duty to defend under the eight-corners rule.\\n B.\\n We now turn to the Scottsdale policy, which provided Forrest County\\nwith law enforcement liability coverage from November 1985 through\\nNovember 1986. Here are its relevant terms:\\n The Company will pay on behalf of the INSURED all sums which\\n the INSURED shall become legally obligated to pay as damages\\n because of WRONGFUL ACT(S) which result in:\\n A) PERSONAL INJURY\\n\\n\\n 3 To the extent that Travelers argues that Forrest County officers’ civil rights\\nviolations did not proximately cause Bivens’s and Dixon’s bodily injuries (because they were\\nmore proximately caused by prosecutors and prison officials), that argument goes to\\nindemnity, not the duty to defend. The policy imposes on Travelers the duty to defend even\\nclaims that are “groundless.” And Mississippi law imposes a duty to defend any claim that\\nfalls “arguably,” Am. Guarantee, 273 F.3d at 610, or “potentially,” Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d at 559,\\nwithin the policy’s coverage.\\n 8\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\n B) BODILY INJURY\\n C) PROPERTY DAMAGE\\n caused by an OCCURRENCE and arising out of the performance\\n of the INSURED’S duties to provide law enforcement and/or other\\n departmentally approved activities . . . .\\n DEFENSE, SETTLEMENT AND SUPPLEMENTARY\\n PAYMENTS\\n The Company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit\\n against the INSURED seeking damages on account of such\\n PERSONAL INJURY, BODILY INJURY, or PROPERTY\\n DAMAGE even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless,\\n false, or fraudulent . . . .\\n ...\\n DEFINITIONS\\n ...\\n PERSONAL INJURY—means:\\n ...\\n 3) False arrest, detention or imprisonment, or malicious\\n prosecution;\\n ...\\n if such offense is committed during the policy period.\\n ...\\n BODILY INJURY—bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by\\n any person which occurs during the policy period, including death\\n at any time resulting therefrom.\\n ...\\n OCCURRENCE—means an event, including continuous or\\n repeated exposure to conditions, which results in PERSONAL\\n INJURY, BODILY INJURY or PROPERTY DAMAGE sustained,\\n during the policy period, by any person or organization and arising\\n out of the performance of the INSURED’S law enforcement duties.\\n Like Travelers, Scottsdale does not dispute that Forrest County officers\\ncommitted wrongful acts while executing law enforcement duties. But we must\\nagain decide whether injuries suffered in prison during the policy period\\ntrigger a duty to defend even though prepolicy acts caused those injuries.\\n\\n 9\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\n Unlike Travelers’, Scottsdale’s policy is ambiguous on this question. It\\ndoes not require that a “wrongful act” occur during the policy period. But it\\ndoes require that covered injuries result from an “occurrence.” The policy’s\\ndefinition of “occurrence” includes the phrase “during the policy period,” but it\\nis not clear whether it means that the injury must occur during the policy\\nperiod, or that the occurrence must occur during the policy period.\\n The “nearest reasonable referent” canon helps resolve the ambiguity.\\n“When the syntax involves something other than a parallel series of nouns or\\nverbs, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies only to the\\nnearest reasonable referent.” ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING\\nLAW 152 (2012). The relevant portion of the policy’s definition of “occurrence”\\ncan be abbreviated as (1) an event, (2) that results in injury sustained,\\n(3) during the policy period. The postpositive modifier (“during the policy\\nperiod”) immediately follows the “injury sustained” term. So, applying the\\ncanon, the injury must occur during the policy period; the causal event can\\nprecede it.\\n A basic principle of insurance law points in the same direction as the\\nsyntactic rule. When a court “deems the terms of an insurance policy\\nambiguous or doubtful, it must interpret them most favorably to the insured\\nand against the insurer.” Centennial Ins. Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 149\\nF.3d 378, 382–83 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Caldwell v. Hartford Acc. & Indem.\\nCo., 160 So. 2d 209, 212–13 (Miss. 1964) (“The rule that the insurance policy\\nprepared by the insurer must be construed more strongly against the insurance\\ncompany, and that any fair doubt should be resolved in favor of the insured, is\\nso well-settled in the law of insurance that we hesitate to cite any cases.”).\\n Both the grammatical and insurance canons thus resolve the ambiguity\\nby interpreting the policy as providing the same coverage as Travelers’: If the\\n\\n\\n 10\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\nestates alleged that covered injuries occurred during the policy period,\\nScottsdale must defend.\\n And, again, the estates make the necessary allegations. The Scottsdale\\npolicy defines bodily injury to include bodily injury, sickness, and disease. The\\nestates’ complaint alleges that all three men suffered such injuries between\\nNovember 1985 and November 1986:\\n • Dixon “suffered bodily injuries, assaults and batteries, and numerous\\n other injuries in prison in 1985 and in subsequent years.”\\n • Ruffin “was infected with syphilis and herpes in 1984 and 1985. From\\n 1985 through 1988 he suffered severe rashes, abdominal pain,\\n nausea, and vomiting resulting from his exposure to detergents and\\n other chemicals used in the prison.”\\n • “From 1985 through 1987, Mr. Bivens was admitted to the hospital or\\n medical ward over a dozen times for asthma attacks, respiratory\\n distress, and bronchitis aggravated by prison conditions.”\\n Although Scottsdale’s duty to defend was not triggered by the ongoing\\nimprisonment, it was triggered by the discrete bodily injuries Bivens, Dixon,\\nand Ruffin suffered as a result of the County’s wrongful acts that framed them.\\nWe thus affirm the district court’s judgment that Scottsdale has a duty to\\ndefend.\\n\\n III.\\n We have resolved this case against Travelers and Scottsdale by applying\\nthe plain terms of their policies and, in Scottsdale’s case, established canons of\\ninterpretation. That is consistent with Mississippi law, which holds that an\\n“insurance company’s duty to defend its insureds derives neither from common\\nlaw nor statute, but rather from the provisions of its policy, that is, its\\ninsurance contract with its insured.” Baker Donelson Bearman & Caldwell,\\nP.C. v. Muirhead, 920 So. 2d 440, 450 (Miss. 2006).\\n We thus are not applying a “theory” of insurance coverage. Travelers\\nand Scottsdale devote substantial energy to arguing that Mississippi would not\\n\\n 11\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\nrecognize so-called “continuous trigger” or “multiple trigger” theories. We\\nagree that such extracontractual rules have no role to play. Under a\\ncontinuous trigger theory, “an insurance company has a duty to defend and\\nindemnify if it has issued a policy in effect at any time during the continuing\\ntort.” City of Erie, Pa. v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co., 109 F.3d 156, 164 (3d Cir.\\n1997). We do not hold that Forrest County’s torts were continuing. That is\\nwhy we do not find a duty to defend under the personal injury provision—the\\nfalse imprisonment tort ended with the institution of legal process. But the\\nestates allege bodily injuries during the policy periods that were distinct from\\nthe convictions themselves.\\n Closer to the mark, the insurers argue that siding with the estates would\\nrequire us to apply a multiple trigger theory. We do hold that coverage was\\ntriggered in more than one year by more than one injury. But we do so because\\nTravelers and Scottsdale agreed to policies that permit multiple triggers if\\nthere are different injuries, quite apart from any common law “multiple\\ntrigger” principle. A simple analogy may be useful. Say that one insurer\\npromises an apple farmer to pay for any bodily injury caused in 1985, so long\\nas it is caused by the farmer’s agricultural acts. Another insurer makes the\\nsame promise for 2010. If the farmer had planted a tree in 1979, and apples\\nfrom that tree fell and injured passersby in both 1985 and 2010, both policies\\nwould be triggered. The two injuries are distinct from one another despite\\nstemming from the same covered act. And it does not matter that the injuries\\narose years after the covered act. Reaching that same conclusion here is just\\na matter of enforcing the parties’ agreements, not a broader theory of insurance\\nlaw.\\n The cases Travelers and Scottsdale cite in support of a contrary result\\nfall into two buckets. The first and larger bucket of cases does not apply here\\nbecause they address act-based policies, not injury-based ones. See City of Erie,\\n 12\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\n109 F.3d at 158 (parties agreed that policies covered “liability for any act done\\nwhile the policy is in effect”); Sarsfield v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 335 F.\\nApp’x 63, 66 (1st Cir. 2009) (“This insurance applies to ‘wrongful act(s)’ which\\noccurs in the ‘coverage territory’ and during the policy period.”); TIG Ins. Co.\\nv. City of Elkhart, 122 F. Supp. 3d 795, 804 (N.D. Ind. 2015) (“caused by an\\nOCCURRENCE to which this policy applies during this POLICY PERIOD”);\\nIndian Harbor Ins. Co. v. City of Waukegan, 33 N.E.3d 613, 616 (Ill. Ct. App.\\n2015) (“The wrongful act(s) must occur during the policy period and within the\\npolicy territory.”); City of Lee’s Summit v. Missouri Pub. Entity Risk Mgmt.,\\n390 S.W.3d 214, 218 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (“caused by or arising out of . . . an\\nact, accident, event, during the coverage period”); Town of Newfane v. Gen. Star\\nNat’l Ins. Co., 14 A.D.3d 72, 75 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) (“caused by an offense . . .\\ncommitted . . . during the policy period”). In wrongful conviction cases, the\\nwrongful act is the one that causes the wrongful conviction; thus, act-based\\npolicies are usually triggered on or around the time of conviction. 4 That has\\nno bearing on injury-based policies like Travelers’ and Scottsdale’s.\\n The second bucket of cases (which also includes many from the first)\\naddresses personal injury, not bodily injury. See, e.g., Genesis Ins. Co. v. City\\nof Council Bluffs, 677 F.3d 806, 812, 815 (8th Cir. 2012) (malicious prosecution\\noccurred when charges were filed, so personal injury arose at that time);\\nChicago Ins. Co. v. City of Council Bluffs, 713 F.3d 963, 970–71 (8th Cir. 2013)\\n(same). We have already explained the difference between the two types of\\ncoverage: The completion of a tort triggers personal injury coverage when the\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 The estates do allege that Forrest County officials committed additional wrongful\\nacts during Travelers’ and Scottsdale’s policy periods by failing to come forward with\\nexculpatory evidence or admit their civil rights violations. But other courts have rejected\\nthis argument, holding that failure to admit past unconstitutional acts does not retrigger an\\nact-based policy. See, e.g., Indian Harbor, 33 N.E.3d at 623. We need not decide the question\\nbecause the Travelers and Scottsdale policies are injury-based rather than act-based.\\n 13\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\npolicy defines personal injury in terms of a cause of action. But the suffering\\nof a new harm—provided it is caused by a covered act—triggers bodily injury\\ncoverage, so long as the policy defines bodily injury without reference to the\\ntort that caused it.\\n We recognize that some wrongful conviction cases have applied a rule\\nthat even injury-based coverage is triggered only when the injury first\\nmanifests itself—a single, exclusive trigger. Genesis Ins., 677 F.3d at 815–16;\\nChicago Ins., 713 F.3d at 971; see also Coregis Ins. Co. v. City of Harrisburg,\\nNo. 1:03-CV-920, 2006 WL 860710, at *11 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2006); N. River\\nIns. Co. v. Broward Cty. Sherriff’s Office, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1289–90 (S.D.\\nFla. 2006); Idaho Counties Risk Mgmt. Program Underwriters v. Northland\\nIns. Cos., 205 P.3d 1220, 1226 (Idaho 2009). But those cases did not confront\\nthe allegations we have here of discrete bodily injuries beyond the harm of\\nincarceration itself. The majority in Chicago Insurance, for instance, rejected\\nthe idea that because “the period of time during which the two men were\\nimprisoned included” the policy period, they “clearly sustained damage” during\\nthe policy period. 713 F.3d at 974 (Bye, J., concurring in part and dissenting\\nin part). And the Coregis court clarified that the underlying plaintiff’s alleged\\nhumiliation and reputational damage did not “suggest that he has incurred\\ninjuries distinct from those he suffered as the result of his arrest, prosecution,\\nand ultimate conviction.” 2006 WL 860710, at *10, 12.\\n Given that the estates do allege distinct injuries, 5 not just a continuous\\ninjury beginning with incarceration and ending with exoneration and release,\\nMississippi law does not require us to graft onto the policy language the single-\\ntrigger rule Travelers and Scottsdale advocate. The cases they rely on say only\\n\\n\\n 5 Of course, for the County to obtain indemnity, the estates will need to prove that\\ndistinct bodily injuries occurred during the policy periods. But at this stage, it is enough that\\nthose injuries are alleged. See supra note 3.\\n 14\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\nthat the statute of limitations for professional negligence, when the alleged\\nnegligence results in wrongful conviction, runs from the negligent causal act,\\nnot exoneration and release. See Smith v. Sneed, 638 So. 2d 1252, 1256 (Miss.\\n1994); Stevens v. Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177, 1183 (Miss. 1993). But the Smith and\\nStevens analysis focuses on when the “unlawful acts” occurred, so Travelers’\\nand Scottsdale’s reliance on them is unavailing. See Smith, 638 So. 2d at 1256\\n(quoting Stevens, 615 So. 2d at 1183). As we have discussed at length, their\\npolicies are not triggered by unlawful acts, but by resulting injuries.\\n At bottom, Travelers and Scottsdale ask us to hold that that insurance\\ncoverage be triggered by a single moment of wrongful conduct, or a single\\nmoment of injury—even when the policy’s terms do not. If insurers want that\\nresult, they know how to bargain for it. Like the insurers in many of the cases\\ncited by Travelers and Scottsdale, four insurers won summary judgments in\\nthis case because they wrote policies requiring that the wrongful act occur\\nduring the policy period.\\n Another option is the so-called “deemer clause,” under which all\\nresultant injuries are deemed to have occurred simultaneously with the act\\nthat caused them. See RESTATEMENT OF LIABILITY INSURANCE § 33 cmt. e\\n(explaining that deemer clauses “define a triggering event to take place at a\\ndesignated time even when that event did not only take place at that time, or\\nperhaps not even at that time at all”). 6 Tellingly, Travelers bargained for just\\nsuch a clause in the policy at issue in this case, but only for property damage\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 From an insurer’s perspective, deemer clauses can be good or bad, depending on the\\nlikelihood that the insured will do something that could cause damage for years to come. A\\nsingle triggering event (the wrongful act or the first sign of damages) during the policy period\\ncan sign the insurer up to cover damages that may last well beyond its policy period—up to\\nits policy limits, anyway. But the insurer does not have to cover injuries for acts that occurred\\nprior to the policy period.\\n\\n 15\\n\\f Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-60291\\ncoverage: “We’ll consider all loss of use of . . . undamaged tangible property to\\nhappen at the time of the wrongful act which caused it.” It could have done\\nthe same for bodily injury coverage. Indeed, it did so in a law enforcement\\nliability policy issued to Forrest County for 2012–13: “All ‘bodily injury’ . . .\\ncaused by the same ‘wrongful act’ or ‘related wrongful acts’ will be deemed to\\noccur when the first part of such ‘bodily injury’ . . . occurs.” We must give effect\\nto the different bargain Travelers and Scottsdale struck in the earlier policies.\\n ***\\n “Insurance policies are contracts, and as such, they are to be enforced\\naccording to their provisions.” Noxubee Cty. School Dist. v. United Nat. Ins.\\nCo., 883 So. 2d 1159, 1166 (Miss. 2004). The provisions of the Travelers and\\nScottsdale policies cover bodily injuries occurring during the policy period.\\nBecause the estates’ complaint alleges those injuries during the relevant time\\nperiods, both insurers have a duty to defend Forrest County and its officers.\\nWe thus AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2065,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4625406,"string":"4,625,406"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Virgil Lee BAILEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Virgil Bailey, Jr."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-31"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-11223"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Davis, Haynes, Graves\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"Case: 18-11223 Document: 00514978757 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n\\n No. 18-11223\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n FILED\\n Summary Calendar May 31, 2019\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk\\n\\n\\n Plaintiff-Appellee\\n\\nv.\\n\\nVIRGIL LEE BAILEY, JR.,\\n\\n Defendant-Appellant\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Texas\\n\\n\\nBefore DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.\\nPER CURIAM:\\n Virgil Lee Bailey, Jr., appeals his convictions of production of child\\npornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and possession of child pornography\\nunder 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4), as well as his 480-month prison sentence. He\\nconcedes that relief on the issues he asserts is foreclosed under our current\\nprecedent, and he raises the issues to preserve them for further review. In\\nlight of our current precedent, we dispense with further briefing and AFFIRM.\\n First, Bailey asserts that the factual basis supporting his guilty pleas to\\nthe charges is insufficient under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11\\nbecause he did not admit that the offenses caused the materials to move in\\ninterstate commerce or, at least, that the materials did so in the recent past,\\n\\f Case: 18-11223 Document: 00514978757 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n No. 18-11223\\n\\nas § 2251(a) and § 2252(a)(4) should be construed to require. Relying on the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), Bailey\\ncontends that a conviction in the absence of such proof impermissibly intrudes\\nupon the police power of the States.\\n Plain error review applies to Bailey’s forfeited objection to the factual\\nbasis for his guilty pleas. See United States v. Trejo, 601 F.3d 308, 313 (5th\\nCir. 2010). We have held that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to\\nprohibit local, intrastate production of child pornography where the materials\\nused in the production were moved in interstate commerce. See United States\\nv. Dickson, 632 F.3d 186, 189-90, 192 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v.\\nKallestad, 236 F.3d 225, 226-31 (5th Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court’s decision\\nin Bond did not abrogate the holdings of these cases. See United States v.\\nMcCall, 833 F.3d 560, 564-65 (5th Cir. 2016). As Bailey concedes, he cannot\\nshow error in the district court’s decision that there was a sufficient factual\\nbasis for his guilty pleas in light of this caselaw. See Puckett v. United States,\\n556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).\\n Alternatively, Bailey asserts that Dickson and Kallestad were wrongly\\ndecided in light of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,\\n567 U.S. 519 (2012) (National Federation), and that the Commerce Clause does\\nnot authorize Congress to impose federal criminal liability where the\\ndefendant’s conduct is tenuously related to interstate commerce. Under the\\nrule of orderliness, “we are not at liberty to overrule our settled precedent\\nbecause the Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation did not overrule\\nit.” United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). Therefore,\\nwe are bound by Kallestad and Dickson. Bailey’s arguments are unavailing.\\n Next, Bailey argues that the district court plainly erred when it\\ndetermined that his offense level exceeded 43 before subtracting three levels\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 18-11223 Document: 00514978757 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n No. 18-11223\\n\\nfor acceptance of responsibility. He contends that this constitutes an\\n“arithmetic error” and falls within an exception to his appeal waiver. We\\ndisagree. The error Bailey complains of is not mathematical, as we have used\\nthat term; he challenges the district court’s application of the Guidelines, see\\nUnited States v. Reyes, 881 F.2d 155, 156 (5th Cir. 1989), not the correctness\\nof its arithmetic. See United States v. Minano, 872 F.3d 636, 636 (5th Cir.\\n2017). Thus, Bailey’s knowing and voluntary appeal waiver bars his challenge.\\nSee United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v.\\nBond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005).\\n Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The\\nGovernment’s motions for summary affirmance and, alternatively, for an\\nextension of time to file an appellate brief, are DENIED.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4402659/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"DAVIS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAYNES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"GRAVES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625406/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Virgil Lee BAILEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-31\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nCase: 18-11223 Document: 00514978757 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n\n No. 18-11223\n Fifth Circuit\n\n FILED\n Summary Calendar May 31, 2019\n Lyle W. Cayce\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk\n\n\n Plaintiff-Appellee\n\nv.\n\nVIRGIL LEE BAILEY, JR.,\n\n Defendant-Appellant\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Texas\n\n\nBefore DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.\nPER CURIAM:\n Virgil Lee Bailey, Jr., appeals his convictions of production of child\npornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and possession of child pornography\nunder 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4), as well as his 480-month prison sentence. He\nconcedes that relief on the issues he asserts is foreclosed under our current\nprecedent, and he raises the issues to preserve them for further review. In\nlight of our current precedent, we dispense with further briefing and AFFIRM.\n First, Bailey asserts that the factual basis supporting his guilty pleas to\nthe charges is insufficient under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11\nbecause he did not admit that the offenses caused the materials to move in\ninterstate commerce or, at least, that the materials did so in the recent past,\n\f Case: 18-11223 Document: 00514978757 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n No. 18-11223\n\nas § 2251(a) and § 2252(a)(4) should be construed to require. Relying on the\nSupreme Court’s decision in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), Bailey\ncontends that a conviction in the absence of such proof impermissibly intrudes\nupon the police power of the States.\n Plain error review applies to Bailey’s forfeited objection to the factual\nbasis for his guilty pleas. See United States v. Trejo, 601 F.3d 308, 313 (5th\nCir. 2010). We have held that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to\nprohibit local, intrastate production of child pornography where the materials\nused in the production were moved in interstate commerce. See United States\nv. Dickson, 632 F.3d 186, 189-90, 192 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v.\nKallestad, 236 F.3d 225, 226-31 (5th Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court’s decision\nin Bond did not abrogate the holdings of these cases. See United States v.\nMcCall, 833 F.3d 560, 564-65 (5th Cir. 2016). As Bailey concedes, he cannot\nshow error in the district court’s decision that there was a sufficient factual\nbasis for his guilty pleas in light of this caselaw. See Puckett v. United States,\n556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).\n Alternatively, Bailey asserts that Dickson and Kallestad were wrongly\ndecided in light of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,\n567 U.S. 519 (2012) (National Federation), and that the Commerce Clause does\nnot authorize Congress to impose federal criminal liability where the\ndefendant’s conduct is tenuously related to interstate commerce. Under the\nrule of orderliness, “we are not at liberty to overrule our settled precedent\nbecause the Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation did not overrule\nit.” United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). Therefore,\nwe are bound by Kallestad and Dickson. Bailey’s arguments are unavailing.\n Next, Bailey argues that the district court plainly erred when it\ndetermined that his offense level exceeded 43 before subtracting three levels\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case: 18-11223 Document: 00514978757 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n No. 18-11223\n\nfor acceptance of responsibility. He contends that this constitutes an\n“arithmetic error” and falls within an exception to his appeal waiver. We\ndisagree. The error Bailey complains of is not mathematical, as we have used\nthat term; he challenges the district court’s application of the Guidelines, see\nUnited States v. Reyes, 881 F.2d 155, 156 (5th Cir. 1989), not the correctness\nof its arithmetic. See United States v. Minano, 872 F.3d 636, 636 (5th Cir.\n2017). Thus, Bailey’s knowing and voluntary appeal waiver bars his challenge.\nSee United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v.\nBond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005).\n Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The\nGovernment’s motions for summary affirmance and, alternatively, for an\nextension of time to file an appellate brief, are DENIED.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Virgil Lee BAILEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-31\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nCase: 18-11223 Document: 00514978757 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n\\n No. 18-11223\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n FILED\\n Summary Calendar May 31, 2019\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk\\n\\n\\n Plaintiff-Appellee\\n\\nv.\\n\\nVIRGIL LEE BAILEY, JR.,\\n\\n Defendant-Appellant\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Texas\\n\\n\\nBefore DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.\\nPER CURIAM:\\n Virgil Lee Bailey, Jr., appeals his convictions of production of child\\npornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and possession of child pornography\\nunder 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4), as well as his 480-month prison sentence. He\\nconcedes that relief on the issues he asserts is foreclosed under our current\\nprecedent, and he raises the issues to preserve them for further review. In\\nlight of our current precedent, we dispense with further briefing and AFFIRM.\\n First, Bailey asserts that the factual basis supporting his guilty pleas to\\nthe charges is insufficient under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11\\nbecause he did not admit that the offenses caused the materials to move in\\ninterstate commerce or, at least, that the materials did so in the recent past,\\n\\f Case: 18-11223 Document: 00514978757 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n No. 18-11223\\n\\nas § 2251(a) and § 2252(a)(4) should be construed to require. Relying on the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), Bailey\\ncontends that a conviction in the absence of such proof impermissibly intrudes\\nupon the police power of the States.\\n Plain error review applies to Bailey’s forfeited objection to the factual\\nbasis for his guilty pleas. See United States v. Trejo, 601 F.3d 308, 313 (5th\\nCir. 2010). We have held that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to\\nprohibit local, intrastate production of child pornography where the materials\\nused in the production were moved in interstate commerce. See United States\\nv. Dickson, 632 F.3d 186, 189-90, 192 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v.\\nKallestad, 236 F.3d 225, 226-31 (5th Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court’s decision\\nin Bond did not abrogate the holdings of these cases. See United States v.\\nMcCall, 833 F.3d 560, 564-65 (5th Cir. 2016). As Bailey concedes, he cannot\\nshow error in the district court’s decision that there was a sufficient factual\\nbasis for his guilty pleas in light of this caselaw. See Puckett v. United States,\\n556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).\\n Alternatively, Bailey asserts that Dickson and Kallestad were wrongly\\ndecided in light of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,\\n567 U.S. 519 (2012) (National Federation), and that the Commerce Clause does\\nnot authorize Congress to impose federal criminal liability where the\\ndefendant’s conduct is tenuously related to interstate commerce. Under the\\nrule of orderliness, “we are not at liberty to overrule our settled precedent\\nbecause the Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation did not overrule\\nit.” United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). Therefore,\\nwe are bound by Kallestad and Dickson. Bailey’s arguments are unavailing.\\n Next, Bailey argues that the district court plainly erred when it\\ndetermined that his offense level exceeded 43 before subtracting three levels\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 18-11223 Document: 00514978757 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n No. 18-11223\\n\\nfor acceptance of responsibility. He contends that this constitutes an\\n“arithmetic error” and falls within an exception to his appeal waiver. We\\ndisagree. The error Bailey complains of is not mathematical, as we have used\\nthat term; he challenges the district court’s application of the Guidelines, see\\nUnited States v. Reyes, 881 F.2d 155, 156 (5th Cir. 1989), not the correctness\\nof its arithmetic. See United States v. Minano, 872 F.3d 636, 636 (5th Cir.\\n2017). Thus, Bailey’s knowing and voluntary appeal waiver bars his challenge.\\nSee United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v.\\nBond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005).\\n Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The\\nGovernment’s motions for summary affirmance and, alternatively, for an\\nextension of time to file an appellate brief, are DENIED.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2066,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4625411,"string":"4,625,411"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"In the MATTER OF: LIFE PARTNERS HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, Debtor. Life Partners Creditors' Trust ; Alan M. Jacobs, as Trustee for Life Partners Creditors' Trust, Appellants, v. Fred A. Cowley; Gallagher Financial Group; Edward G. Burford Corporation; Faye Bagby; Ella Oliver, Doing Business as Investingmakesmesick.com; Wealthstone Financial ; Falco Group, L.L.C.; Mark McKay; Kainos Asset Management, L.L.C. ; Life Settlement Exchange, L.L.C., Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Life Partners Creditors' Trust v. Cowley (In Re Life Partners Holdings, Inc.)"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-31"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-11477"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Elrod, Higginson, Engelhardt\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n FILED\\n No. 17-11477 May 31, 2019\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\n Clerk\\nIn the Matter of: LIFE PARTNERS HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED\\n\\n Debtor.\\n----------------------------------\\n\\nLIFE PARTNERS CREDITORS' TRUST; ALAN M. JACOBS, As Trustee for\\nLife Partners Creditors' Trust,\\n\\n Appellants,\\n\\nv.\\n\\nFRED A. COWLEY; GALLAGHER FINANCIAL GROUP; EDWARD G.\\nBURFORD CORPORATION; FAYE BAGBY; ELLA OLIVER, doing business\\nas Investingmakesmesick.com; WEALTHSTONE FINANCIAL; FALCO\\nGROUP, L.L.C.; MARK MCKAY; KAINOS ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.;\\nLIFE SETTLEMENT EXCHANGE, L.L.C.,\\n\\n Appellees.\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Texas\\n\\n\\nBefore ELROD, HIGGINSON, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.\\nJENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:\\n This case arises out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcies of three related\\nentities: Life Partners Holdings, Inc.; Life Partners, Inc. (LPI); and LPI\\nFinancial Services (collectively, the “LP Entities”). The LP Entities operated\\nan investment business focused on the sale of interests in life insurance\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\npolicies, through which they defrauded investors and violated securities laws.\\nSee Moran v. Pardo, No. 4:15-cv-00905, Dkt. No. 359 (N.D. Tex. June 12, 2017);\\nsee also SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 854 F.3d 765, 789 (5th Cir. 2017).\\nThe LP Entities used a multi-level marketing structure to sell their life\\ninsurance investments, contracting with individuals and entities they called\\n“Licensees” to refer potential investors in exchange for sales commissions. The\\nbankruptcy trustee filed five adversary proceedings 1 against various groups of\\nthese Licensees, asserting claims under the Bankruptcy Code and on behalf of\\nindividual investors. Life Partners Creditors’ Trust (Creditors’ Trust)—an\\nentity created by the Chapter 11 plan—was later substituted as plaintiff in\\nthese proceedings.\\n The district court granted the Licensees’ motions to dismiss all of\\nCreditors’ Trust’s claims and declined to allow repleading. The district court\\nalso denied Creditors’ Trust’s motion for reconsideration. We AFFIRM in part\\nand REVERSE and REMAND in part.\\n I.\\n A.\\n In 1991, Brian Pardo founded LPI for the purpose of selling “viaticals”—\\ninvestments in life insurance policies that the insureds had sold to third\\nparties. 2 LPI’s parent company, Life Partners Holdings, and a related entity,\\nLPI Financial Services, were also engaged in this business. The LP Entities\\n\\n\\n 1This appeal is from the district court’s judgment in one of the five adversary\\nproceedings. The other four cases remain pending before our panel: Nos. 17-11480, 17-11488,\\n18-10051, and 18-10056.\\n\\n 2 The facts in this section are taken from Creditors’ Trust’s third amended complaint—\\nthe live pleading at the time of dismissal—because at the motion to dismiss stage, we “must\\naccept as true all of the allegations contained in [the] complaint.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.\\n662, 678 (2009); see also U.S. ex rel. Spicer v. Westbrook, 751 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014)\\n(“[W]e accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and interpret the complaint in the\\nlight most favorable to the plaintiff[.]”).\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nused a multi-level marketing structure to promote their investment offerings\\nto investors. First, the LP Entities contracted with “Master Licensees” to\\n(1) refer potential investors to the LP Entities and (2) recruit additional\\nlicensees. The licensees recruited by Master Licensees—called “Referring\\nLicensees”—would in turn enter into two contracts: one with the LP Entities\\nto refer potential investors, and another with the Master Licensee to facilitate\\ntheir sharing of the commissions received from the LP Entities’ sales. The LP\\nEntities produced offering materials for both types of Licensees to distribute to\\npotential investors.\\n Through their Licensees, the LP Entities sold life insurance policies in\\nshares referred to as “fractional interests.” Under their investment contracts\\nwith the LP Entities, the investors funded an escrow account with sufficient\\nfunds to keep the policies in effect during the life expectancies of the insureds\\nas estimated by the LP Entities on their offering materials. If the insureds\\nsurvived beyond the LP Entities’ estimate, the investors also agreed to\\ncontribute additional funds for premiums until the policies reached maturity.\\n Initially, the LP Entities focused on policies in which the insureds had\\nbeen diagnosed with AIDS because the disease shortened the insureds’ life\\nexpectancies in comparison to the actuarial life expectancies used by insurance\\ncompanies. However, shortly after the LP Entities entered the viaticals\\nmarket, medical advances significantly increased life expectancies for AIDS\\npatients. As a result, by 2004, the LP Entities had pivoted their business\\nmodel to focus on elderly insureds who were terminally ill—individuals whose\\nlife expectancies would presumably also be shorter than the actuarial\\nestimates. The LP Entities hired Dr. Donald Cassidy to identify appropriate\\ninsureds and estimate their life expectancies.\\n However, it soon became apparent that Dr. Cassidy did not have the\\nability to perform either task with any accuracy. Of the 302 policies that the\\n 3\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nLP Entities originated between 2004 and 2007, Dr. Cassidy predicted that 157\\nwould mature by the end of 2007. Only seven matured during that time.\\nUndeterred, the LP Entities continued to use the inaccurate life expectancies\\nto set the purchase price of the fractional interests, which resulted in the LP\\nEntities overcharging investors. In addition, the offering materials distributed\\nby the Licensees continued to represent that the insureds had short life\\nexpectancies when their life expectancies were likely no shorter than the\\nactuarial estimates.\\n According to Creditors’ Trust, the LP Entities’ offering materials also\\ncontained numerous other misrepresentations regarding the life insurance\\nindustry and the LP Entities’ investment offerings. Most of these\\nmisrepresentations were related to Dr. Cassidy’s flawed life expectancy\\nestimates, which the LP Entities used to support their claims that the\\nfractional interests were sound investments with a “superior yield potential,”\\nthat the policies would mature relatively quickly, that the investments were\\nlow-risk even if the LP Entities’ life expectancy predictions were incorrect, that\\nthe LP Entities’ prices were appropriate, and that the LP Entities had a\\npositive track record with past life insurance investments. These\\nmisrepresentations form the basis of several of Creditors’ Trust’s claims\\nagainst the Licensees.\\n Over a twelve-year period, the LP Entities raised more than $1.8 billion\\nfrom the sale of more than 100,000 fractional interests to investors. Even when\\ninvestors began expressing doubts because policy maturities were long overdue\\nand media coverage suggested Dr. Cassidy’s predictions were inaccurate,\\nPardo and other LP Entities insiders continued to represent that Dr. Cassidy’s\\npredictions were accurate and that the policies would mature imminently. The\\nLicensees disseminated these representations to the investors.\\n\\n\\n 4\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n Throughout this time, the Licensees received commissions and fees\\nunder their contracts with the LP Entities. Between 2008 and 2015, these\\ncommissions and fees totaled more than $27.6 million. While investors knew\\nthat a portion of their investment funds would be used to pay fees, they were\\nnot given specifics as to how that money was distributed. On average, the\\nLicensees received 12% of the money an investor provided in exchange for a\\nfractional interest, which was well above the industry standard for a\\ncommission in a securities transaction.\\n Due to the large commissions paid to the Licensees—as well as large\\ndistributions made to Pardo and other LP Entities executives—Creditors’\\nTrust alleges that the LP Entities were insolvent for much of their existence\\nprior to filing for bankruptcy. Because the life settlements were bad\\ninvestments, each new purchase of a fractional interest created a liability to\\nthe investor. And because the LP Entities were depleting all their resources\\non commissions and distributions, they did not have sufficient funds to cover\\nthose liabilities. Instead, the LP Entities—through the Licensees—continued\\nto recruit new investors to keep the business funded. Eventually, however, the\\nLP Entities no longer had enough capital to conduct their business operations\\nor continue maintaining the policies that had not yet matured.\\n As the fraudulent practices of the LP Entities came to light through\\nmedia coverage, investors began to file class action lawsuits against the\\ncompanies. See, e.g., Turnbow v. Life Partners, Inc., 2013 WL 3479884, at *1–\\n2 (N.D. Tex. July 9, 2013). In addition, the SEC began investigating the LP\\nEntities. The SEC filed suit based on its findings, and the Western District of\\nTexas found that Pardo had “knowingly—or at least recklessly—violated\\nsecurities laws.” SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 3d 615, 619\\nn.1 (W.D. Tex. 2014), vacated in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 854\\nF.3d at 789.\\n 5\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n B.\\n On January 20, 2015, Life Partners Holdings filed for bankruptcy\\nprotection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Chapter 11 trustee\\nfiled bankruptcy petitions on behalf of the LP subsidiaries, LPI and LPI\\nFinancial Services, on May 19, 2015.\\n The Chapter 11 trustee then filed a series of adversary proceedings on\\nbehalf of the bankruptcy estates. One of the proceedings targeted Pardo and\\nother LP Entities executives and insiders. See Moran, No. 4:15-CV-905, Dkt.\\nNo. 16 (amended complaint). The district court assigned to that case withdrew\\nthe bankruptcy reference and denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, some\\nof which raised arguments similar to those raised by the Licensees here. Id.\\nDkt. Nos. 5, 192. The case proceeded to trial, where a civil jury found that\\nPardo was liable for fraud and that Pardo and other LP insiders were unjustly\\nenriched. See id. Dkt. No. 359 (jury verdict). The district court’s final\\njudgment awarded the LP Entities’ bankruptcy estates and the plaintiff-\\ninvestors in the case more than $40 million in damages. Id. Dkt. No. 440 (final\\njudgment).\\n The five related adversary proceedings before this panel target the LP\\nEntities’ Licensees. The Chapter 11 trustee filed the original complaint in this\\nadversary proceeding in October 2015. The Chapter 11 trustee amended the\\ncomplaint twice before the bankruptcy judge abated all adversary proceedings\\npending confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan. The plan created Creditors’\\nTrust and assigned it two types of claims: (1) claims for liabilities owed to the\\nLP Entities’ bankruptcy estates (Estate Claims), which the Chapter 11 trustee\\nhad previously asserted in the adversary proceedings; and (2) claims\\npreviously held by individual LP Entities investors (Investor Claims), which\\nCreditors’ Trust asserted for the first time in the third amended complaint.\\n\\n\\n 6\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n After the Chapter 11 plan was confirmed, the bankruptcy judge lifted the\\nabatement and proceeded to consider the adversary proceedings, including this\\none. Creditors’ Trust then filed its third amended complaint, asserting the\\nfollowing claims:\\n (A) Estate Claims\\n • Count 1: Actual fraudulent transfer under Texas Business &\\n Commerce Code § 24.005(a)(1) through 11 U.S.C. § 544 (against\\n all Licensees listed on Exhibit 4 of the third amended complaint).\\n Exhibit 4 lists “the annual total commissions received by the\\n Defendant Licensees from 2008 through February[] 2015.” Thus,\\n Creditors’ Trust claims that the commissions the Licensees\\n received from the LP Entities are fraudulent transfers that can be\\n avoided under the Bankruptcy Code.\\n • Count 2: Constructive fraudulent transfer under Texas Business\\n & Commerce Code § 24.005(a)(2) through 11 U.S.C. § 544 (against\\n all Licensees listed on Exhibit 4).\\n • Count 3: Actual fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C.\\n § 548(a)(1)(A) (against “Certain Licensees” listed on Exhibit 4).\\n • Count 4: Constructive fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C.\\n § 548(a)(1)(B) (against “Certain Licensees” listed on Exhibit 4). 3\\n • Count 5: Preferences under 11 U.S.C. § 547 (against “Certain\\n Licensees” listed on Exhibit 4). Creditors’ Trust claims that the\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 We have explained before that fraudulent transfer claims under the Texas Uniform\\nFraudulent Transfer Act and the Bankruptcy Code differ in material ways. See, e.g., Janvey\\nv. Golf Channel, Inc., 834 F.3d 570, 573 (5th Cir. 2016) (“The Supreme Court of Texas’s\\nanswer interprets the concept of ‘value’ under TUFTA differently than we have understood\\n‘value’ under . . . section 548(c) [of] the Bankruptcy Code.”). To the extent that these\\ndifferences are relevant to our Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) analysis, we address\\nthem below.\\n 7\\n\\fCase: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n commissions received by “Certain Licensees” are also avoidable as\\n preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code.\\n • Count 6: Recovery of avoided transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 550\\n (against all Licensees).\\n • Count 7: Breach of contract (against all Licensees). Creditors’\\n Trust later agreed to voluntarily abandon this claim, and it is not\\n at issue on appeal.\\n • Count 8: Equitable subordination of the Licensees’ claims against\\n the LP Entities’ bankruptcy estates under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c)\\n (against all Licensees).\\n • Count 9: Disallowance of the Licensees’ claims against the LP\\n Entities’ bankruptcy estates under 11 U.S.C. § 502(d) (against all\\n Licensees).\\n (B) Investor Claims\\n • Count 10: Negligent misrepresentation (against “Certain\\n Licensees,” with a reference to Exhibit 5 of the third amended\\n complaint). Exhibit 5 is a “chart detailing the . . . relationship\\n between Licensees and Investors with regard to sales to specific\\n investors.” Creditors’ Trust’s negligent misrepresentation claims\\n appear to be primarily based on the Licensees’ distribution of the\\n LP Entities’ offering materials to investors.\\n • Count 11: Breach of the Texas Securities Act (against “Certain\\n Licensees,” with a reference to Exhibit 5). Creditors’ Trust claims\\n that the fractional interests were “unregistered securities,” and\\n “certain Licensees” were “unlicensed brokers engaged in the sale”\\n of these securities.\\n • Count 12: Breach of fiduciary duty (against “Certain Licensees,”\\n with a reference to Exhibit 5). Creditors’ Trust claims that as\\n 8\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n securities brokers, the Licensees owed the investors a fiduciary\\n duty which they breached by making material\\n misrepresentations. 4\\n Many of the Licensees filed or amended previously filed motions to\\ndismiss the third amended complaint. The district court withdrew the\\nreference in the adversary proceeding and referred the motions to the\\nbankruptcy judge. The bankruptcy judge held two hearings on the motions\\nbefore filing his report and recommendation.\\n The bankruptcy judge recommended dismissal of the fraudulent transfer\\nclaims, the preference claim, the negligent misrepresentation claim, and the\\nbreach of fiduciary duty claim. The judge further recommended that the Texas\\nSecurities Act claim be dismissed in part on limitations grounds, and that the\\nequitable subordination and disallowance claims be dismissed in part as to\\nLicensees who did not file claims in the LP Entities’ bankruptcy cases. 5 As to\\neach claim for which he recommended dismissal, the bankruptcy judge also\\nrecommended that Creditors’ Trust be granted leave to amend the third\\namended complaint.\\n After reviewing the bankruptcy judge’s recommendations, the district\\ncourt issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing all of Creditors’\\nTrust’s claims against the Licensees with prejudice. In contrast to the\\nbankruptcy judge’s recommendation, however, the district court declined to\\npermit Creditors’ Trust to amend its complaint to correct the pleading defects.\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Creditors’ Trust also asserted a constructive trust claim in the third amended\\ncomplaint. However, as Creditors’ Trust acknowledges, a constructive trust is “a practical\\nmechanism to enforce the substantive Counts” in its complaint—a remedy rather than a\\nsubstantive claim. Accordingly, we leave the issue of whether that remedy is appropriate in\\nthis case for the district court to address at a later procedural stage.\\n\\n 5 The bankruptcy judge did not recommend dismissal of the avoidance claim, but this\\nclaim is derivative of Counts 1–5.\\n 9\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nCreditors’ Trust then filed a motion for reconsideration, urging the court to\\ngrant leave to amend the third amended complaint based on an “oral motion”\\nCreditors’ Trust made before the bankruptcy judge. Creditors’ Trust attached\\na fourth amended complaint with significantly longer exhibits which it insisted\\naddressed the pleading issues identified in the district court’s order. The\\ndistrict court denied the motion.\\n II.\\n Creditors’ Trust appeals three determinations by the district court:\\n(1) its grant of the Licensees’ motions to dismiss; (2) its denial of leave to\\namend the third amended complaint; and (3) its denial of the motion for\\nreconsideration.\\n A.\\n We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal\\nRule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. Castro v. Collecto, Inc., 634 F.3d 779,\\n783 (5th Cir. 2011). Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain “a short and\\nplain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]”\\nFed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To satisfy Rule 8(a), “a complaint must contain\\nsufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is\\nplausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell\\nAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A pleaded claim is plausible\\nif the allegations in the complaint “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable\\ninference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.\\n Rule 9(b) imposes a heightened pleading standard in cases where the\\nplaintiff alleges fraud or mistake: particularity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). When the\\nRule 9(b) pleading standard applies, the complaint must contain factual\\nallegations stating the “time, place, and contents of the false representations,\\nas well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what\\n[that person] obtained thereby.” Tuchman v. DSC Commc’ns Corp., 14 F.3d\\n 10\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n1061, 1068 (5th Cir. 1994) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). In other\\nwords, to properly allege fraud under Rule 9(b), the plaintiff must plead the\\nwho, what, when, where, and why as to the fraudulent conduct. See id.\\n The live pleading in this case is the 48-page third amended complaint, to\\nwhich Creditors’ Trust has attached in support nearly 400 pages of exhibits.\\nSee Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (“A written\\ndocument that is attached to a complaint as an exhibit is considered part of the\\ncomplaint and may be considered in a 12(b)(6) dismissal proceeding.”). 6 The\\nthird amended complaint recites a complex set of detailed factual allegations\\nand sets out twelve separate causes of action under which Creditors’ Trust\\ninsists that it is entitled to relief. With respect to each of Creditors’ Trust’s\\nclaims, we evaluate de novo whether the allegations in the third amended\\ncomplaint adequately state a claim.\\n 1. Counts 1 and 3 – Actual Fraudulent Transfer\\n Creditors’ Trust’s first claim relies on the actual fraud provision of the\\nTexas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA):\\n A transfer made . . . by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor,\\n whether the creditor’s claim arose before or within a reasonable\\n time after the transfer was made . . . , if the debtor made the\\n transfer . . . : (1) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any\\n creditor of the debtor[.]\\n\\nTex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.005(a)(1). Thus, the elements of an actual\\nfraudulent transfer under TUFTA are: (1) a creditor; (2) a debtor; (3) the\\ndebtor transferred assets shortly before or after the creditor’s claim arose;\\n(4) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any of the debtor’s creditors.\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 We caution litigants that this rule does not mean they can or should attach lengthy\\nexhibits to their complaints in the hope of making otherwise deficient pleadings sufficient\\nunder Rule 12(b)(6). However, in complex cases such as this one, documents that support a\\nplaintiff’s claims and aggregate relevant information can be helpful attachments.\\n 11\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nNwokedi v. Unlimited Restoration Specialists, Inc., 428 S.W.3d 191, 204–05\\n(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). Creditors’ Trust brings this\\nclaim through 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1). Count 3 relies on the Bankruptcy Code’s\\nactual fraudulent transfer doctrine, set out in 11 U.S.C. § 548:\\n The trustee may avoid any transfer . . . of an interest of the debtor\\n in property . . . that was made or incurred on or within 2 years\\n before the date of the filing of the petition, if the debtor voluntarily\\n or involuntarily—\\n (A) made such transfer . . . with actual intent to hinder,\\n delay, or defraud any entity to which the debtor was or\\n became, on or after the date that such transfer was\\n made . . . , indebted[.]\\n\\n11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A). As noted above, Creditors’ Trust’s theory for its\\nfraudulent transfer claims is that the commissions the LP Entities paid the\\nLicensees are avoidable fraudulent transfers.\\n As an initial matter, Creditors’ Trust argues that although Counts 1 and\\n3 are actual fraudulent transfer claims, the Rule 8(a) pleading standard\\napplies. The bankruptcy judge agreed, relying on Judge Godbey’s opinion in\\nJanvey v. Alguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d 662 (N.D. Tex. 2011). The district court\\napplied Rule 9(b). Consistent with Judge Godbey’s reasoning in Alguire,\\nCreditors’ Trust emphasizes that its actual fraudulent transfer claims do not\\nrequire any allegation that the defendant Licensees engaged in fraud; only the\\nfraudulent conduct of the debtor LP Entities is relevant to Counts 1 and 3.\\nAlguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 676 (holding that there is “no principled reason” to\\napply Rule 9 to TUFTA actual fraudulent transfer claims because “[t]here is\\nno allegation that the [d]efendant committed any act of fraud” (alterations in\\noriginal)).\\n We have not previously addressed the question of whether an actual\\nfraudulent transfer claim is subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading\\nrequirements. See Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 599 (5th Cir. 2011) (“We\\n 12\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nneed not and do not address the issue of whether heightened pleading is\\nrequired.”). And the district courts in this circuit are not in unanimity on this\\nquestion. Compare Guffy v. Brown (In re Brown Med. Ctr., Inc.), 552 B.R. 165,\\n167 (S.D. Tex. 2016) (applying Rule 9(b)), with Alguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 675–\\n76. But we observe that at least three other circuits—the First, Second, and\\nEighth Circuits—have concluded that Rule 9(b) applies. In re Lawson, 791\\nF.3d 214, 217 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2015) (noting that Rule 9 is the appropriate\\npleading standard for an actual fraudulent transfer claim under the Rhode\\nIsland Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act); In re Sharp Int’l Corp., 403 F.3d 43,\\n56 (2d Cir. 2005) (New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act); Stoebner v.\\nOpportunity Fin., LLC, 909 F.3d 219, 225, 226 & n.6 (8th Cir. 2018) (Minnesota\\nUniform Fraudulent Transfer Act); see also Pricaspian Dev. Corp. v. Martucci,\\n759 F. App’x 131, 135–36 (3d Cir. 2019) (New Jersey Uniform Fraudulent\\nTransfer Act); Nw. Nat. Ins. Co. of Milwaukee, Wis. v. Joslyn, 53 F.3d 331, at\\n*1, 4 (6th Cir. 1995) (unpublished) (Ohio’s fraudulent transfer statute);\\nNishibun v. Prepress Sols., Inc., 111 F.3d 138, at *1 (9th Cir. 1997)\\n(unpublished) (California’s fraudulent transfer statute); 5A Charles Alan\\nWright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1297 (4th ed. 2019\\nupdate) (“Claims of fraudulent transfer or fraudulent conveyance are also\\nsubject to the heightened standard of Rule 9(b).”).\\n The Fourth, Seventh, 7 Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have not yet\\naddressed the issue, and the district courts in the Fourth, Tenth, and Eleventh\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 The Seventh Circuit has held that constructive fraudulent transfer claims under the\\nIllinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act are subject to Rule 9(b), Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v.\\nLease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1078–79 (7th Cir. 1997), and district courts in the\\ncircuit have applied this holding to actual fraudulent transfer claims as well. See Desmond\\nv. Taxi Affiliation Servs. LLC, 344 F. Supp. 3d 915, 923–24, 926 (N.D. Ill. 2018).\\n\\n 13\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nCircuits, like ours, are divided. 8 Here, because Creditors’ Trust’s Count 1 and\\n3 allegations are sufficient under either standard, we need not weigh in on this\\nvexing question.\\n First, Creditors’ Trust adequately states a claim under Rule 8(a) and\\nTwombly. The third amended complaint identifies the Licensees—listed by\\nname in Exhibit 4—as the creditors to whom the transfers were made and the\\nLP Entities as the debtor-transferors. The Licensees complain that Creditors’\\nTrust has not specified which LP Entity made the transfers, but in cases\\ninvolving a Ponzi or Ponzi-like scheme, a plaintiff “may establish fraudulent\\nintent by showing that the . . . enterprise operated as a Ponzi scheme” without\\nproving which of the entities involved in the scheme was the transferor.\\nAlguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 672 (citing Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 511, 558\\n(5th Cir. 2006)); see id. at 677. And it can hardly be argued that the third\\namended complaint fails to allege an actual intent to defraud on the part of the\\nLP Entities—the complaint is replete with allegations to this effect, including\\nfacts corresponding directly to the “badges of fraud” listed in the Texas actual\\nfraudulent transfer statute. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.005(b).\\n If Rule 9(b) is the applicable pleading standard, the Count 1 and 3\\nallegations satisfy it as well. Exhibit 4 sets out the details of the allegedly\\nfraudulent transfers—including the transferor, transferees, amounts, and\\ntime period—and the complaint itself contains pages of allegations detailing\\nthe underlying fraudulent scheme. See Alguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 677 (finding\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Fourth Circuit: Compare Hongda Chem USA, LLC v. Shangyu Sunfit Chem. Co.,\\n2016 WL 4703725, at *5 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2016) (applying Rule 9(b)), with Bell v. Disner,\\n2014 WL 6978690, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 9, 2014) (applying Rule 8). Tenth Circuit: Compare\\nWagner v. Galbreth, 500 B.R. 42, 53 (D.N.M. 2013) (applying Rule 9(b)), with Touchstone\\nGrp., LLC v. Rink, 913 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1083 (D. Colo. 2012) (applying Rule 8). Eleventh\\nCircuit: Compare Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 2007 WL 2872463, at *6 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 26, 2007)\\n(applying Rule 9(b)), with Pearlman v. Alexis, 2009 WL 3161830, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25,\\n2009) (applying Rule 8).\\n 14\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nfraudulent transfer allegations sufficient under Rule 9(b) where they included\\nthe time period in which the transfers occurred; the details of the underlying\\nPonzi scheme, including that the defendants received compensation from the\\nPonzi scheme “in the form of funds derived from unsuspecting investors[]”; and\\nthe total amount of compensation each defendant received).\\n With respect to the timing of the transfers, the Licensees have not\\ndemonstrated that any transfers are barred by TUFTA’s four-year statute of\\nlimitations for the reasons explained in the bankruptcy judge’s report and\\nrecommendation. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.010(a)(1). Under the\\nBankruptcy Code, however, actual fraudulent transfer claims are barred as to\\ntransfers made more than two years before the petition date. 11 U.S.C.\\n§ 548(a)(1). Exhibit 4 lists transfers occurring as far back as 2008, some of\\nwhich are plainly untimely under this statute of repose. Accordingly, we affirm\\nthe district court’s dismissal of Count 3 only as to transfers made by Life\\nPartners Holdings before January 20, 2013, and transfers made by LPI and\\nLPI Financial Services before May 19, 2013. Because we conclude that Count\\n1 and the remainder of Count 3 are adequately pleaded, we hold that the\\ndistrict court erred in dismissing these claims.\\n 2. Counts 2 and 4 – Constructive Fraudulent Transfer\\n TUFTA’s constructive fraudulent transfer provision, which Creditors’\\nTrust relies on in Count 2 of the third amended complaint, stipulates:\\n A transfer made . . . by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor,\\n whether the creditor’s claim arose before or within a reasonable\\n time after the transfer was made . . . , if the debtor made the\\n transfer . . . : (2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value\\n in exchange for the transfer . . . , and the debtor:\\n (A) was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a\\n transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor\\n were unreasonably small in relation to the business or\\n transaction; or\\n\\n 15\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n (B) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have\\n believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the\\n debtor’s ability to pay as they became due.\\n\\nTex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.005(a)(2). Creditors’ Trust also brings this claim\\nthrough 11 U.S.C. § 544. The elements of a constructive fraudulent transfer\\nunder Texas law are the same as actual fraudulent transfer except instead of\\npleading fraudulent intent, the plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating: (1) a\\nlack of reasonably equivalent value for the transfer; and (2) the transferor was\\n“financially vulnerable” or insolvent at the time of the transaction. See Janvey\\nv. Golf Channel, Inc., 487 S.W.3d 560, 562, 566 & n.21 (Tex. 2016); Tex. Bus.\\n& Com. Code § 24.006(a). Creditors’ Trust’s Bankruptcy Code constructive\\nfraudulent transfer claim, labeled Count 4, requires the following:\\n The trustee may avoid any transfer . . . of an interest of the debtor\\n in property . . . that was made or incurred on or within 2 years\\n before the date of the filing of the petition, if the debtor voluntarily\\n or involuntarily—\\n (B)(i) received less than a reasonably equivalent value in\\n exchange for such transfer . . . ; and\\n (ii)(I) was insolvent on the date that such transfer was\\n made . . . , or became insolvent as a result of such\\n transfer . . . [.]\\n11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B).\\n As with actual fraudulent transfer claims, we have not addressed the\\nquestion of whether the Rule 9(b) pleading standard applies to constructive\\nfraudulent transfer claims. District courts in the Fifth Circuit have suggested\\nthat constructive fraudulent transfer claims are only subject to Rule 8(a). See,\\ne.g., Janvey v. Univ. of Miami, 2013 WL 12361381, at *4–5 (N.D. Tex. July 11,\\n2013); E. Poultry Distribs., Inc. v. Yarto Puez, 2001 WL 34664163, at *2 (N.D.\\nTex. Dec. 3, 2001). In Eastern Poultry, Judge Lynn emphasized that\\nconstructive fraudulent transfer allows for “fraudulent transfer without intent\\n\\n\\n 16\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nto defraud,” citing to the Southern District of New York’s reasoning that “fraud\\nhas nothing to do with [a] constructive fraudulent transfer claim” because\\n“[t]he transaction is based on the transferor’s financial condition and the\\nsufficiency of the consideration provided by the transferee.” E. Poultry, 2001\\nWL 34664163, at *2; In re White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp., 222 B.R.\\n417, 428–29 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).\\n While this reasoning has persuasive value, two of our sister circuits have\\nheld that constructive fraudulent transfer claims are subject to Rule 9(b). Gen.\\nElec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1078–79 (7th Cir.\\n1997) (Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act); Stoebner, 909 F.3d at 225,\\n226 & n.6 (Minnesota Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act). No other circuits\\nappear to have directly addressed the issue. But see In re Sharp, 403 F.3d at\\n56 (applying Rule 9(b) only to actual fraudulent transfer claims under the New\\nYork Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act). Because we conclude that the\\nCount 2 and 4 allegations satisfy both Rule 8(a) and Rule 9(b), we do not need\\nto reach this question.\\n Creditors’ Trust’s third amended complaint satisfies Rule 8(a), largely\\nfor the same reasons that the Count 1 and 3 allegations are sufficient. On the\\nissue of insolvency, Creditors’ Trust has plausibly alleged that the LP Entities\\nwere insolvent for much of their existence, explaining that each new purchase\\nof a fractional interest created a liability to the investor that the LP Entities\\nhad insufficient funds to cover because they were paying commissions to the\\nLicensees and distributions to insiders. See Alguire, 647 F.3d at 597 (“[A] Ponzi\\nscheme ‘is, as a matter of law, insolvent from its inception.’” (quoting Warfield,\\n436 F.3d at 558)). In addition, Creditors’ Trust has adequately alleged a lack\\nof reasonably equivalent value because providing services in furtherance of a\\nfraudulent Ponzi-like scheme, as Creditors’ Trust alleges the Licensees did,\\n\\n\\n 17\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\ndoes not confer reasonably equivalent value as a matter of law. See Warfield,\\n436 F.3d at 560.\\n Even if Counts 2 and 4 are subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading\\nstandard, they are alleged with sufficient particularity to satisfy that standard.\\nSee Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 128 F.3d at 1080 (holding that constructive\\nfraudulent transfer pleadings complied with Rule 9(b) where the complaint\\nalleged that the transferor did not receive reasonably equivalent value and\\nthat the transfers “rendered [the transferor] insolvent and effectively\\nprecluded” it from paying its debts (internal quotation marks and citation\\nomitted)); Janvey v. Suarez, 978 F. Supp. 2d 685, 696, 701 (N.D. Tex. 2013)\\n(applying Alguire’s reasoning regarding Rule 9(b) equally to a TUFTA\\nconstructive fraudulent transfer claim).\\n Notwithstanding the above, the Licensees contend that Counts 2 and 4\\nare barred at least in part by the relevant statutes of repose. Compare Tex.\\nBus. & Com. Code § 24.010(a)(2) (TUFTA’s four-year state of repose), with 11\\nU.S.C. § 548(a)(1) (Bankruptcy Code’s two-year statute of repose). We agree\\nfor the reasons explained by the bankruptcy judge. We therefore dismiss\\nCount 2 only as to transfers from Life Partners Holdings that occurred before\\nJanuary 20, 2011, and transfers from LPI and LPI Financial Services that\\noccurred before May 19, 2011. We also dismiss Count 4 only as to transfers\\nfrom Life Partners Holdings that occurred before January 20, 2013, and\\ntransfers from LPI and LPI Financial Services that occurred before May 19,\\n2013. Because the remainder of Counts 2 and 4 are adequately pleaded under\\nRule 8(a), the district court erred in dismissing these claims in their entirety.\\n 3. Count 5 – Preferential Transfer\\n The elements of a Bankruptcy Code preference claim are as follows:\\n [T]he trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in\\n property—\\n\\n 18\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n (1) to or for the benefit of a creditor;\\n (2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor\\n before such transfer was made;\\n (3) made while the debtor was insolvent;\\n (4) made—\\n (A) on or within 90 days before the date of the filing of\\n the petition . . . ; and\\n (5) that enables such creditor to receive more than such\\n creditor would receive if—\\n (A) the case were a case under chapter 7 of this title;\\n (B) the transfer had not been made; and\\n (C) such creditor received payment of such debt to the\\n extent provided by the provisions of this title.\\n\\n11 U.S.C. § 547(b). In the third amended complaint, Creditors’ Trust clarifies\\nthat its preference claim applies only to transfers that were made within 90\\ndays before each of the LP Entities’ bankruptcy petitions were filed.\\n The parties do not dispute that Rule 8(a) applies to Count 5. The third\\namended complaint’s allegations satisfy this standard as to elements 1–4\\nabove. The complaint alleges that the LP Entities transferred commissions to\\nthe Licensees (1) for the Licensees’ benefit; (2) pursuant to a contractual\\nobligation that the LP Entities owed to the Licensees; (3) while the LP Entities\\nwere insolvent, as explained in supra Section II.A.2.; and (4) within 90 days\\nbefore each LP Entity filed its bankruptcy petition. However, the third\\namended complaint does not plead any facts relevant to element 5: it does not\\nexplain what the Licensees would have received in a chapter 7 case, nor does\\nit state whether the commissions were greater than that amount. Accordingly,\\nbecause Count 5 does not contain allegations on this essential element of a\\npreferential transfer, we hold that the district court properly dismissed this\\nclaim as inadequately pleaded. See Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d\\n228, 257 (5th Cir. 2009) (explaining that Twombly requires allegations on\\n“each element of a claim”).\\n\\n\\n 19\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n 4. Counts 6 and 9 – Avoidance and Disallowance\\n As the Licensees acknowledge, Creditors’ Trust’s avoidance and\\ndisallowance claims are remedial. Under the Bankruptcy Code, if Creditors’\\nTrust demonstrates that the transfers to the Licensees were fraudulent or\\npreferential, it is entitled to avoid these transfers and recover them on behalf\\nof the bankruptcy estates. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 548(a)(1), 550(a). In\\naddition, the Licensees’ claims against the bankruptcy estates will be\\ndisallowed in whole or in part. See 11 U.S.C. § 502(d). Thus, these two claims\\nare derivative of and dependent on Creditors’ Trust’s Count 1–5 allegations.\\nBecause Counts 1–4 of the third amended complaint are adequately pleaded,\\nwe hold that the district court erred in dismissing derivative Counts 6 and 9.\\n 5. Count 8 – Equitable Subordination\\n Under 11 U.S.C. § 510, “the court may . . . under principles of equitable\\nsubordination, subordinate for purposes of distribution all or part of an allowed\\nclaim to all or part of another allowed claim” in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 510(c).\\nIn the Fifth Circuit, equitable subordination is appropriate when (1) the\\nclaimant engaged in inequitable conduct; (2) the misconduct resulted in harm\\nto the debtor’s other creditors or conferred an unfair advantage on the\\nclaimant; and (3) equitable subordination is not inconsistent with the\\nBankruptcy Code. Wooley v. Faulkner (In re SI Restructuring, Inc.), 532 F.3d\\n355, 360 (5th Cir. 2008). “[A] claim should be subordinated only to the extent\\nnecessary to offset the harm which the . . . creditors have suffered as a result\\nof the inequitable conduct.” Id. at 360–61. This court typically only applies\\nequitable subordination in three types of cases: (1) when a fiduciary of the\\ndebtor misuses the relationship to the disadvantage of other creditors;\\n(2) when a third party controls the debtor to the disadvantage of other\\ncreditors; and (3) when a third party actually defrauds other creditors. Official\\n\\n\\n 20\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nComm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Cajun Elec. Power Coop., Inc. (In re Cajun\\nElec. Power Coop., Inc.), 119 F.3d 349, 357 (5th Cir. 1997).\\n The Licensees insist that the equitable subordination claim is subject to\\nRule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard because it is “fraud-based.” We\\ndisagree for the reason set out by the bankruptcy judge:\\n“[e]quitable subordination claims, by their nature, do not require the\\nestablishment of fraud by the defendant.” Equitable subordination requires\\nonly “inequitable conduct” on the part of the claimant, so Creditors’ Trust need\\nonly satisfy Rule 8(a) to adequately plead this claim. See In re SI\\nRestructuring, 532 F.3d at 360.\\n While the third amended complaint does contain allegations to address\\nthe elements of equitable subordination, the allegations are largely conclusory.\\nFor example, the third amended complaint does not allege facts regarding the\\nextent of the harm that any individual investor suffered, stating only that the\\nLicensees’ conduct resulted in “the transfer of substantial value” to the\\nLicensees “to the direct detriment” of the investors. The exhibits attached to\\nthe third amended complaint do not appear to provide this information either.\\nThese types of conclusory recitations fail to state a claim under Rule 8(a). See\\nTwombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause\\nof action will not do[.]”). Moreover, the third amended complaint does not\\nallege that the Licensees were fiduciaries of the debtor LP Entities or that the\\nLicensees controlled the LP Entities, and Creditors’ Trust concedes that it has\\nnot alleged that the Licensees actually defrauded the investors. Thus, the\\nthird amended complaint fails to state an equitable subordination claim, and\\nthe district court properly dismissed Count 8.\\n 6. Count 10 – Negligent Misrepresentation\\n Under Texas law, the elements of negligent misrepresentation are:\\n\\n\\n 21\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n (1) the representation is made by a defendant in the course of his\\n business, or in a transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest;\\n (2) the defendant supplies “false information” for the guidance of\\n others in their business; (3) the defendant did not exercise\\n reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the\\n information; and (4) the plaintiff suffers pecuniary loss by\\n justifiably relying on the representation.\\n\\nFed. Land Bank Ass’n of Tyler v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1991).\\n We must first decide which pleading standard applies to Creditors’\\nTrust’s negligent misrepresentation claim. “Although Rule 9(b) by its terms\\ndoes not apply to negligent misrepresentation claims, this court has applied\\nthe heightened pleading requirements when the parties have not urged a\\nseparate focus on the negligent misrepresentation claims.” Benchmark Elecs.,\\nInc. v. J.M. Huber Corp., 343 F.3d 719, 723 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Williams v.\\nWMX Techs., Inc., 112 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1997)). Because Creditors’ Trust\\nhas identified a separate focus on its negligent misrepresentation claims, Rule\\n9(b) does not apply here. In Williams, the fraud and negligent\\nmisrepresentation claims relied on the same misrepresentations, 112 F.2d at\\n177, and in Benchmark, they were “based on the same set of alleged facts.” 343\\nF.3d at 723. Here, however, Creditors’ Trust’s negligent misrepresentation\\nclaim relies on a different set of misrepresentations—the offering materials—\\nthan its fraudulent transfer claims, which rely on the commissions paid to the\\nLicensees as the operative fraudulent conduct. The two claims also rely on\\ndifferent sets of underlying facts: for the fraudulent transfer claims, the\\nrelevant facts are the payment of commissions to the Licensees; for the\\nnegligent misrepresentation claim, the relevant facts are the distribution of\\nthe LP offering materials to investors. Count 10 is thus subject only to Rule\\n8(a). See Am. Realty Tr., Inc. v. Hamilton Lane Advisors, Inc., 115 F. App’x\\n662, 668 & n.30 (5th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing Williams and Benchmark and\\n\\n\\n 22\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 23 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nfinding that “plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation claims are only subject to\\nthe liberal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)”).\\n The negligent misrepresentation allegations in the third amended\\ncomplaint satisfy Rule 8(a). Specifically, the complaint explains that (1) the\\nLicensees distributed the offering materials in the course of their employment\\nand had a pecuniary interest through their commissions; (2) the offering\\nmaterials contained an array of false statements and were provided to the\\ninvestors; (3) the Licensees distributed the offering materials when they knew\\nor should have known that the fractional interests were bad investments; and\\n(4) the investors justifiably relied by purchasing fractional interests and were\\nharmed “in the minimum amount of the price paid for their investment[s].” We\\ntherefore hold that the district court erred in dismissing Count 10 as\\ninadequately pleaded. 9\\n 7. Count 11 – Violation of the Texas Securities Act\\n The Texas Securities Act provides that:\\n A person who offers or sells a security in violation of Section 7, 9 .\\n . . , 12, [or] 23C . . . of this Act is liable to the person buying the\\n security from him, who may sue either at law or in equity for\\n rescission or for damages if the buyer no longer owns the security.\\n\\nTex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 581-33(A)(1). Section 7 of the Act prohibits the sale of\\nunregistered securities, id. art. 581-7, and Section 12 sets out requirements for\\nthe registration of a seller of securities, id. art. 581-12. Section 9 of the Act\\nrequires the disclosure of material facts in an offer of sale for a security. Id.\\nart. 581-9(C). Finally, Section 23(C) proscribes false, misleading, or deceptive\\noffers to sell that are prohibited by a cease publication order. Id. art. 581-\\n23(C).\\n\\n\\n\\n We agree with the bankruptcy judge’s conclusion that this claim is not barred by\\n 9\\n\\nlimitations for the reasons stated in the bankruptcy judge’s report and recommendation.\\n 23\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 24 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n The parties agree that Rule 8(a) applies to Count 11. The allegations on\\nthis count do not adequately state a claim. The third amended complaint does\\nnot clearly allege which sections of the Texas Securities Act the Licensees\\nviolated. Presumably, because the third amended complaint states that the\\nLicensees were “unlicensed brokers engaged in the sale of unregistered\\nsecurities,” Creditors’ Trust focuses on Sections 7 and 12. However, because\\nthe third amended complaint does not explain which Licensees are the “certain\\nLicensees” who violated the Act, it fails to give those defendants fair notice of\\nthe claim against them. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In addition, as the\\ndistrict court noted, neither the third amended complaint nor Exhibit 5\\ncontains information indicating which investors still own fractional interests,\\nso it is impossible to determine whether the remedy sought by each investor is\\nrescission or damages. For these reasons, the district court properly dismissed\\nCreditors’ Trust’s Texas Securities Act claim.\\n 8. Count 12 – Breach of Fiduciary Duty\\n The parties disagree as to whether Rule 9(b) applies to this claim. We\\nhave noted in an unpublished case that Rule 9(b) governs breach of fiduciary\\nduty claims that are “predicated on fraud.” Brown v. Bilek, 401 F. App’x 889,\\n893 (5th Cir. 2010); see also In re Elec. Data Sys. Corp. ERISA Litig., 305 F.\\nSupp. 2d 658, 672 (E.D. Tex. 2004) (“Only a breach of fiduciary duty claim\\nwhich includes a fraud claim implicates Rule 9(b).”). But Creditors’ Trust has\\nnot pleaded a breach of fiduciary duty claim that is “predicated on fraud.”\\nInstead, the third amended complaint alleges that the Licensees disseminated\\nthe misrepresentations in the offering materials negligently. Thus, the breach\\nof fiduciary duty claim does not rely on fraudulent conduct by the Licensees,\\nbut instead relies on the Licensees’ failure to exercise reasonable care. Count\\n12 is therefore not subject to Rule 9(b).\\n\\n\\n 24\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 25 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n A Texas law claim for breach of fiduciary duty requires the plaintiff to\\nplead the following elements: “(1) the existence of a fiduciary duty, (2) breach\\nof the duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages.” First United Pentecostal Church\\nof Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214, 220 (Tex. 2017). Texas courts have\\nfound that financial advisors owe their clients a fiduciary duty. E.g., W.\\nReserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. Graben, 233 S.W.3d 360, 374 (Tex. App.—\\nFort Worth 2007, no pet.). And this court has held that brokers owe their\\ncustomers a fiduciary duty. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,\\n834 F.2d 523, 530 (5th Cir. 1987). However, as we explained in Romano, “the\\nnature of the fiduciary duty owed will vary, depending on the relationship\\nbetween the broker and the investor.” Id. Thus, because the duty owed is\\ncontingent on the nature of the fiduciary relationship, the plaintiff must plead\\nsome facts as to the nature of the relationship to state a plausible claim that\\nthat a fiduciary duty has been breached. See id. (“[T]he duty to disclose\\ninformation about risk will vary depending on the circumstances and the\\nnature of the relationship[.]” (quoting Clayton Brokerage Co. v. Commodity\\nFutures Trading Comm’n, 794 F.2d 573, 582 (11th Cir. 1986))).\\n The third amended complaint does not contain any allegations regarding\\nthe relationship between any specific Licensee and any specific investor.\\nImportantly, it does not state facts regarding “the degree of trust” placed in the\\nLicensee or “the intelligence and personality” of the investor, so the nature of\\nthe fiduciary duty owed cannot be ascertained from the pleadings. See id. As\\na result, the third amended complaint does not provide sufficient facts to allege\\nthat any fiduciary duty has been breached by any individual Licensee. Finally,\\nthe third amended complaint also limits Count 12 to “certain Licensees,” but\\ndoes not explain which Licensees fall within that group. The district court\\ntherefore properly dismissed Creditors’ Trust’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.\\n\\n\\n 25\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 26 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n For the reasons described, we hold that the district court erred in\\ndismissing Counts 1–4, 6, 9, and 10 as inadequately pleaded. 10 However, we\\naffirm the district court’s dismissal of Counts 5, 8, 11, and 12 under Rule\\n12(b)(6).\\n B.\\n Even if a plaintiff’s pleadings are deficient under Rule 12(b)(6), a district\\ncourt should “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R.\\nCiv. P. 15(a)(2). In fact, “Rule 15(a) ‘evinces a bias in favor of granting leave\\nto amend.’” Thomas v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 832 F.3d 586, 590 (5th Cir. 2016)\\n(quoting Hermann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 302 F.3d 552, 566 (5th\\nCir. 2002)). “[P]ermissible reasons for denying a motion for leave to amend\\ninclude ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,\\nrepeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue\\nprejudice to the opposing party . . . , futility of amendment, etc.’” Id. at 591\\n(quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Leave to amend need not\\nbe granted when the amended pleading “would not withstand a motion to\\ndismiss for failure to state a claim.” Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 360 n.7 (5th\\nCir. 2001). We review the denial of a motion for leave to amend for an abuse\\nof discretion. Thomas, 832 F.3d at 590. However, where the denial of leave to\\namend was based solely on futility, we apply a de novo standard of review\\ninstead. Id.\\n In its order of dismissal, the district court emphasized that Creditors’\\nTrust had not sought leave to amend before the district court issued its final\\njudgment. Creditors’ Trust contends that it did indeed request leave to amend.\\nIt explains the relevant procedural context as follows: At the first hearing\\nbefore the bankruptcy judge, the Licensees “repeatedly correlated the[ir Rule\\n\\n\\n 10 On remand, Creditors’ Trust may still wish to replead these claims for clarity.\\n 26\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 27 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n12(b)(6)] challenges with the manner in which the Creditors’ Trust had utilized\\n‘Exhibit 4’ to the Third Amended Complaint to aggregate pertinent\\ninformation[.]” In response to these specific complaints about the third\\namended complaint, Creditors’ Trust made the following statements:\\n If the Court . . . says that we need to have an Exhibit [4] 11 that\\n runs for thousands of pages and has every payment and every date\\n of payment, that’s within our ability and we would certainly\\n appreciate leave to do so if the Court feels that our pleadings need\\n to go that far.\\n . . . Well, here, I’m advising the Court that . . . it would not\\n be futile to ask us to expand Exhibit [4]. We can certainly do that.\\n . . . [W]e believe that Exhibit [4] was reasonable under the\\n circumstances, and if the Court disagrees, we would ask for leave\\n to fix it.\\n\\nCreditors’ Trust characterizes these statements as a sufficient motion for leave\\nto amend the third amended complaint. We agree.\\n A party requesting leave to amend its pleadings must “give the court\\nsome notice of the nature of his or her proposed amendments.” Thomas, 832\\nF.3d at 590. The party requesting amendment must describe with\\nparticularity the grounds for the amendment and the relief sought, but a\\n“formal motion” is not required. Id. For his part, the bankruptcy judge appears\\nto have found that Creditors’ Trust’s oral statement properly requested leave\\nbecause he recommended that the district court permit repleading. And given\\nthe informal nature of bankruptcy court proceedings, it is not unusual that\\nCreditors’ Trust did not follow its oral request up with a written motion. 12\\n\\n\\n 11The hearings before the bankruptcy judge were joint hearings in all five adversary\\nproceedings. In the live pleadings in three of those cases, Nos. 17-11480, 18-10051, and 18-\\n10056, the equivalent of Exhibit 4 here was instead labeled Exhibit 5. Thus, the parties’\\nreferences to Exhibit 5 at the hearing encompass Exhibit 4 in this case as well.\\n\\n 12Although Creditors’ Trust’s briefs do not address it, Creditors’ Trust did make a\\nwritten request to amend in the district court before final judgment. In its response to the\\nLicensees’ objections to the bankruptcy judge’s report and recommendation, Creditors’ Trust\\n 27\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 28 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nBecause the oral statement gave the court notice of the nature of the\\namendment—expanding Exhibit 4—and the grounds—repleading would not\\nbe futile because Creditors’ Trust had the ability to provide further detail about\\nthe transfers to the Licensees—we hold that Creditors’ Trust properly moved\\nfor leave to amend before final judgment.\\n The district court’s dismissal order explained that it was declining to\\npermit leave to amend because the Licensees’ motions to dismiss alerted\\nCreditors’ Trust to the deficiencies in its pleadings; Creditors’ Trust did not\\nindicate in its response to the motions that it could replead to correct the\\npleading issues; and due to the number of complaint amendments it had\\nalready made, Creditors’ Trust had “had a fair opportunity to make [its] case.”\\nWhile it is true that the Licensees’ motions identified many of the pleading\\nissues that the district court relied upon, Creditors’ Trust had a good-faith\\nbasis for believing that its pleadings were sufficient: it used the same pleading\\nmethodology in its case against Pardo and the LP insiders, and the district\\ncourt there denied Rule 12(b)(6) challenges similar to those made in this case.\\nSee Moran, No. 4:15-CV-905, Dkt. No. 192. Moreover, Creditors’ Trust\\nattempted to address the alleged pleading defects in its second and third\\namended complaints, both of which it filed well before the bankruptcy judge\\nissued his report and recommendation—the first time a court found that its\\npleadings were deficient. In addition, Creditors’ Trust’s third complaint\\namendment was made in response to the confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan\\nin the underlying bankruptcy case, which broadened the nature of the claims\\nthat Creditors’ Trust could assert.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nasked the district court to accept the recommendation to grant leave to amend and offered to\\nfile “more detailed charts.” The district court acknowledged this request in a footnote in its\\norder on the motions to dismiss.\\n 28\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 29 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n Considering the above facts and circumstances, we conclude that the\\nLicensees have not demonstrated undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on\\nthe part of Creditors’ Trust, nor have they convinced the court that permitting\\nCreditors’ Trust to replead would be unduly prejudicial. It was therefore an\\nabuse of discretion for the district court to deny leave to amend for any of these\\nreasons. See Brown v. Taylor, 911 F.3d 235, 247 (5th Cir. 2018) (district court\\nabused its discretion in denying leave to amend where plaintiff explained why\\nhe believed his first amended complaint was sufficient, offered a proposed\\namendment, and had not repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies). The only\\nproper ground on which the district court could have declined to grant leave to\\namend was futility. Accordingly, we will evaluate whether repleading each of\\nCreditors’ Trust’s claims would be futile based on its oral motion for leave to\\namend. See Thomas, 832 F.3d at 592 (evaluating futility based on specific\\namendments plaintiff requested).\\n The pleading defects that the district court and bankruptcy judge\\nidentified with Counts 1–4 resulted largely from the unique pleading\\nmethodology used in the third amended complaint. Specifically, Creditors’\\nTrust relies on Exhibit 4 to set out the details of the transfers it wishes to avoid\\nas either fraudulent or preferential transfers. Exhibit 4, in turn, lists the\\nLicensees’ names and the sum of the transfers allegedly received by each\\nLicensee annually from 2008 to 2015. Exhibit 4 does not, however, identify the\\ntransferor entity for each transfer, the amount of any particular transfer, or\\nthe specific date on which any transfer was made. As we explained in Section\\nII.A., this information is not required to adequately state a claim on Counts 1–\\n4, but the district court expressly relied on these omissions to dismiss these\\ncounts.\\n The substance of Creditors’ Trust’s oral request to replead at the first\\nbankruptcy hearing reveals that it possesses the kind of detailed information\\n 29\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 30 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nabout the alleged fraudulent transfers—dates, amounts, etc.—that the district\\ncourt held was necessary to adequately state a claim. And the specific\\namendment to the third amended complaint that Creditors’ Trust suggested—\\nexpanding Exhibit 4—would include this information in the next iteration of\\nthe complaint. Thus, even if the district court correctly dismissed Counts 1–4\\non these grounds, repleading to add specificity regarding the allegedly\\nfraudulent transfers would not have been futile. 13 Accordingly, the district\\ncourt erred in declining to grant leave to amend the allegations on Counts 1–\\n4. And because Counts 6 and 9 are derivative of Counts 1–4, the district court\\nimproperly denied leave to amend those claims as well.\\n Turning to Count 5, while expanding Exhibit 4 as Creditors’ Trust\\nrequested would provide additional information relevant to this claim, it would\\nnot address the third amended complaint’s failure to plead element 5 of a\\npreferential transfer: that the Licensees’ commissions were greater than the\\namount they would have received through a chapter 7 bankruptcy. See\\nLormand, 565 F.3d at 257. Therefore, granting leave to amend as to Count 5\\nwould have been futile.\\n As for the other claims that Creditors’ Trust asserted in the third\\namended complaint—Count 8, equitable subordination; Count 10, negligent\\nmisrepresentation; Count 11, violations of the Texas Securities Act; and Count\\n12, breach of fiduciary duty—Exhibit 4 does not contain information relevant\\nto these causes of action. In fact, Counts 10–12 expressly rely on a different\\ncomplaint exhibit, Exhibit 5, to aggregate the pertinent details. As a result,\\n\\n\\n\\n 13 The proposed fourth amended complaint that Creditors’ Trust submitted with its\\nmotion for reconsideration confirms that expanding Exhibit 4 would not be futile. The\\nexpanded Exhibit 4 attached to that complaint—now re-labeled as Exhibit 1—lists each\\nallegedly fraudulent or preferential transfer in meticulous detail, setting out the date,\\namount, transferor, transferee, and purpose, as well as the creditors it alleges were defrauded\\nas a result of that transfer. This amendment cures any pleading defects in Counts 1–4.\\n 30\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 31 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nexpanding Exhibit 4 would not address the pleading deficiencies in Counts 8,\\n11, and 12 that we described in the previous section, nor would it address the\\npleading defects the district court identified in Count 10. Because this is the\\nonly complaint amendment that Creditors’ Trust suggested in its oral motion\\nfor leave to amend, granting the motion would have been futile as to these\\nclaims. Thus, the district court did not err in declining to permit Creditors’\\nTrust to replead Counts 8, 10, 11, and 12.\\n C.\\n This court reviews the denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse\\nof discretion. See ICEE Distribs., Inc. v. J&J Snack Foods Corp., 445 F.3d 841,\\n847 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, the district court’s decision need only\\nbe reasonable. Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir.\\n1993). This court construes a motion for reconsideration filed within 28 days\\nof final judgment as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or\\namend the district court’s judgment. Mason v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 671 F.\\nApp’x 880, 884 (5th Cir. 2016); see also Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 303\\n& n.7 (5th Cir. 2010). “A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule\\n59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must\\npresent newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments\\nwhich could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” Schiller\\nv. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal\\nquotation marks omitted) (quoting Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854,\\n863–64 (5th Cir. 2003)).\\n Because we conclude that Counts 1–4, 6, and 9 were adequately\\npleaded—or, in the alternative, that the district court should have granted\\nleave to amend—we need not reach the question of whether the district court\\nalso erred in denying Creditors’ Trust’s motion for reconsideration with respect\\nto those counts. The same can be said for Count 10, which we also conclude\\n 31\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 32 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nwas adequately pleaded in the third amended complaint. As for Creditors’\\nTrust’s remaining claims—Counts 5, 8, 11, and 12—the district court properly\\ndismissed them both because they were inadequately pleaded and because\\nCreditors’ Trust’s proposed amendment was futile as to these claims. We next\\nconsider whether the district court nevertheless abused its discretion in\\ndenying Creditors’ Trust’s motion for reconsideration on these counts.\\n Assuming arguendo that Creditors’ Trust’s Rule 59(e) motion was timely\\nfiled, 14 we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. As we\\nexplain more fully below, the proposed fourth amended complaint attached to\\nthe motion abandons Count 5 and still fails to state a claim on Counts 8 and\\n12, so Creditors’ Trust has not demonstrated that the district court made a\\n“manifest error of law” in dismissing those claims. See Schiller, 342 F.3d at\\n567. And although the fourth amended complaint’s allegations on Count 11\\nare likely sufficient, Creditors’ Trust “could, and should” have requested leave\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 The Licensees argue that the motion for reconsideration was untimely. According\\nto the Licensees, the 14-day deadline for filing post-judgment motions in Federal Rule of\\nBankruptcy Procedure 9023 governs the motion, not the 28-day deadline in Rule 59. Because\\nCreditors’ Trust filed its motion 28 days after judgment was entered, it failed to file within\\nthe bankruptcy deadline. Creditors’ Trust responds that the 14-day deadline in Bankruptcy\\nRule 9023 “applies solely to the transition of jurisdiction from a bankruptcy court to an Article\\nIII court.” Where, as here, a district court has withdrawn the bankruptcy reference,\\nCreditors’ Trust argues that the Bankruptcy Rules are a “procedural nullity.” Although it\\ndid not state the reasons for its conclusion in its order on the motion for reconsideration, the\\ndistrict court agreed with Creditors’ Trust that the motion was not untimely.\\n At best, whether the motion for reconsideration was untimely filed is unclear. In In\\nre Butler, this court found that Bankruptcy Rule 9023 does not apply to appeals from the\\ndistrict court to the court of appeals. Butler v. Merchants Bank & Tr. Co. (In re Butler, Inc.),\\n2 F.3d 154, 155 (5th Cir. 1993). Instead, Bankruptcy Rule 8015 “provides the sole mechanism\\nfor filing a motion for rehearing” in the district court, and Rule 8015 sets a 10-day deadline\\nfor doing so. Id. (quoting Aycock v. Eaton (In re Eichelberger), 943 F.2d 536, 538 (5th Cir.\\n1991)); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8015. Thus, if Butler requires the court to construe the motion for\\nreconsideration as a motion for rehearing, it was untimely. See id. But this court has not\\naddressed which rule—Rule 59, Bankruptcy Rule 8015, or Bankruptcy Rule 9023—governs\\nwhen a district court withdraws the bankruptcy reference in an adversary proceeding, and\\nwe need not do so today.\\n 32\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 33 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nto amend its pleadings on that claim “before the judgment issued.” Id. We will\\naddress each of these claims in turn.\\n 1. Count 5 – Preferential Transfer\\n Creditors’ Trust’s proposed fourth amended complaint abandons this\\nclaim. The district court accordingly did not abuse its discretion in denying\\nthe motion to reconsider as to Count 5.\\n 2. Count 8 – Equitable Subordination\\n The fourth amended complaint’s allegations on the equitable\\nsubordination claim largely duplicate the third amended complaint’s\\nallegations on that claim. Significantly, the fourth amended complaint still\\nfails to plead into one of the three categories of cases in which we permit\\nequitable subordination. See In re Cajun Elec., 119 F.3d at 357. Accordingly,\\npermitting Creditors’ Trust to replead Count 8 would have been futile as well.\\n 3. Count 11 – Violation of the Texas Securities Act\\n The fourth amended complaint states a claim under Section 33(A)(1) of\\nthe Texas Securities Act, adequately alleging violations of Sections 7 and 12.\\nSee Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 581-33(A)(1), 581-7, 581-12. The fourth amended\\ncomplaint remedies the pleading defects in Count 11 in the third amended\\ncomplaint: specifically, it alleges that each of the Licensees—identified by\\nname in Exhibit 4 to the fourth amended complaint—was an unlicensed seller\\nof securities and that Creditors’ Trust seeks to recover damages on behalf of\\nthe investors listed by name in Exhibit 4 in the amount of the purchase price\\nof their investments. See Matlock v. Hill, 2016 WL 3659988, at *5 (Tex. App.—\\nAmarillo June 30, 2016, no pet.) (“[Seller’s] lack of a license coupled with his\\nselling of . . . a security in the guise of a life settlement evinced a violation of\\nart. 581-12(A) of the [Texas Securities Act].”).\\n Nonetheless, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion\\nin denying Creditors’ Trust motion for reconsideration on this claim. Because\\n 33\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 34 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nCreditors’ Trust’s request for leave to amend focused exclusively on expanding\\nExhibit 4 to the third amended complaint, the first time Creditors’ Trust\\nsought to amend its Count 11 allegations was in its motion for reconsideration\\nafter the district court’s judgment of dismissal. See Williams v. McWilliams,\\n20 F.3d 465, 465 (5th Cir. 1994) (finding no abuse of discretion in denial of\\nleave to amend when plaintiff first requested leave in a motion to reconsider\\nafter final judgment). And that motion did not point to any “newly discovered\\nevidence,” nor did it explain why the district court should consider Creditors’\\nTrust’s “arguments which could, and should, have been made before the\\njudgment issued.” See Schiller, 342 F.3d at 567; Briddle v. Scott, 63 F.3d 364,\\n379 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[W]e have consistently upheld the denial of leave to\\namend where the party seeking to amend has not clearly established that he\\ncould not reasonably have raised the new matter prior to the trial court’s\\nmerits ruling.”). The district court’s decision on this claim was reasonable.\\n 4. Count 12 – Breach of Fiduciary Duty\\n On Count 12, the fourth amended complaint does not remedy the third\\namended complaint’s failure to allege facts regarding the nature of the\\nrelationship between any Licensee and any investor. Creditors’ Trust still does\\nnot plead the type of information required under Romano. See 834 F.2d at 530.\\nAs a result, the fourth amended complaint does not adequately allege that any\\nLicensee breached a fiduciary duty. The district court therefore properly\\ndenied Creditors’ Trust’s motion for reconsideration as to Count 12.\\n III.\\n We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of dismissal as to Counts 5, 8,\\n11, and 12. However, we REVERSE the dismissal of Counts 1–4, 6, 9, and 10\\nand REMAND them for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 34\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4402664/\", \"author_raw\": \"JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ELROD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HIGGINSON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ENGELHARDT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625411/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: In the MATTER OF: LIFE PARTNERS HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, Debtor. Life Partners Creditors' Trust ; Alan M. Jacobs, as Trustee for Life Partners Creditors' Trust, Appellants, v. Fred A. Cowley; Gallagher Financial Group; Edward G. Burford Corporation; Faye Bagby; Ella Oliver, Doing Business as Investingmakesmesick.com; Wealthstone Financial ; Falco Group, L.L.C.; Mark McKay; Kainos Asset Management, L.L.C. ; Life Settlement Exchange, L.L.C., Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-31\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nCase: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals\n Fifth Circuit\n\n FILED\n No. 17-11477 May 31, 2019\n Lyle W. Cayce\n Clerk\nIn the Matter of: LIFE PARTNERS HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED\n\n Debtor.\n----------------------------------\n\nLIFE PARTNERS CREDITORS' TRUST; ALAN M. JACOBS, As Trustee for\nLife Partners Creditors' Trust,\n\n Appellants,\n\nv.\n\nFRED A. COWLEY; GALLAGHER FINANCIAL GROUP; EDWARD G.\nBURFORD CORPORATION; FAYE BAGBY; ELLA OLIVER, doing business\nas Investingmakesmesick.com; WEALTHSTONE FINANCIAL; FALCO\nGROUP, L.L.C.; MARK MCKAY; KAINOS ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.;\nLIFE SETTLEMENT EXCHANGE, L.L.C.,\n\n Appellees.\n\n\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Texas\n\n\nBefore ELROD, HIGGINSON, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.\nJENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:\n This case arises out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcies of three related\nentities: Life Partners Holdings, Inc.; Life Partners, Inc. (LPI); and LPI\nFinancial Services (collectively, the “LP Entities”). The LP Entities operated\nan investment business focused on the sale of interests in life insurance\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\npolicies, through which they defrauded investors and violated securities laws.\nSee Moran v. Pardo, No. 4:15-cv-00905, Dkt. No. 359 (N.D. Tex. June 12, 2017);\nsee also SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 854 F.3d 765, 789 (5th Cir. 2017).\nThe LP Entities used a multi-level marketing structure to sell their life\ninsurance investments, contracting with individuals and entities they called\n“Licensees” to refer potential investors in exchange for sales commissions. The\nbankruptcy trustee filed five adversary proceedings 1 against various groups of\nthese Licensees, asserting claims under the Bankruptcy Code and on behalf of\nindividual investors. Life Partners Creditors’ Trust (Creditors’ Trust)—an\nentity created by the Chapter 11 plan—was later substituted as plaintiff in\nthese proceedings.\n The district court granted the Licensees’ motions to dismiss all of\nCreditors’ Trust’s claims and declined to allow repleading. The district court\nalso denied Creditors’ Trust’s motion for reconsideration. We AFFIRM in part\nand REVERSE and REMAND in part.\n I.\n A.\n In 1991, Brian Pardo founded LPI for the purpose of selling “viaticals”—\ninvestments in life insurance policies that the insureds had sold to third\nparties. 2 LPI’s parent company, Life Partners Holdings, and a related entity,\nLPI Financial Services, were also engaged in this business. The LP Entities\n\n\n 1This appeal is from the district court’s judgment in one of the five adversary\nproceedings. The other four cases remain pending before our panel: Nos. 17-11480, 17-11488,\n18-10051, and 18-10056.\n\n 2 The facts in this section are taken from Creditors’ Trust’s third amended complaint—\nthe live pleading at the time of dismissal—because at the motion to dismiss stage, we “must\naccept as true all of the allegations contained in [the] complaint.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.\n662, 678 (2009); see also U.S. ex rel. Spicer v. Westbrook, 751 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014)\n(“[W]e accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and interpret the complaint in the\nlight most favorable to the plaintiff[.]”).\n 2\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nused a multi-level marketing structure to promote their investment offerings\nto investors. First, the LP Entities contracted with “Master Licensees” to\n(1) refer potential investors to the LP Entities and (2) recruit additional\nlicensees. The licensees recruited by Master Licensees—called “Referring\nLicensees”—would in turn enter into two contracts: one with the LP Entities\nto refer potential investors, and another with the Master Licensee to facilitate\ntheir sharing of the commissions received from the LP Entities’ sales. The LP\nEntities produced offering materials for both types of Licensees to distribute to\npotential investors.\n Through their Licensees, the LP Entities sold life insurance policies in\nshares referred to as “fractional interests.” Under their investment contracts\nwith the LP Entities, the investors funded an escrow account with sufficient\nfunds to keep the policies in effect during the life expectancies of the insureds\nas estimated by the LP Entities on their offering materials. If the insureds\nsurvived beyond the LP Entities’ estimate, the investors also agreed to\ncontribute additional funds for premiums until the policies reached maturity.\n Initially, the LP Entities focused on policies in which the insureds had\nbeen diagnosed with AIDS because the disease shortened the insureds’ life\nexpectancies in comparison to the actuarial life expectancies used by insurance\ncompanies. However, shortly after the LP Entities entered the viaticals\nmarket, medical advances significantly increased life expectancies for AIDS\npatients. As a result, by 2004, the LP Entities had pivoted their business\nmodel to focus on elderly insureds who were terminally ill—individuals whose\nlife expectancies would presumably also be shorter than the actuarial\nestimates. The LP Entities hired Dr. Donald Cassidy to identify appropriate\ninsureds and estimate their life expectancies.\n However, it soon became apparent that Dr. Cassidy did not have the\nability to perform either task with any accuracy. Of the 302 policies that the\n 3\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nLP Entities originated between 2004 and 2007, Dr. Cassidy predicted that 157\nwould mature by the end of 2007. Only seven matured during that time.\nUndeterred, the LP Entities continued to use the inaccurate life expectancies\nto set the purchase price of the fractional interests, which resulted in the LP\nEntities overcharging investors. In addition, the offering materials distributed\nby the Licensees continued to represent that the insureds had short life\nexpectancies when their life expectancies were likely no shorter than the\nactuarial estimates.\n According to Creditors’ Trust, the LP Entities’ offering materials also\ncontained numerous other misrepresentations regarding the life insurance\nindustry and the LP Entities’ investment offerings. Most of these\nmisrepresentations were related to Dr. Cassidy’s flawed life expectancy\nestimates, which the LP Entities used to support their claims that the\nfractional interests were sound investments with a “superior yield potential,”\nthat the policies would mature relatively quickly, that the investments were\nlow-risk even if the LP Entities’ life expectancy predictions were incorrect, that\nthe LP Entities’ prices were appropriate, and that the LP Entities had a\npositive track record with past life insurance investments. These\nmisrepresentations form the basis of several of Creditors’ Trust’s claims\nagainst the Licensees.\n Over a twelve-year period, the LP Entities raised more than $1.8 billion\nfrom the sale of more than 100,000 fractional interests to investors. Even when\ninvestors began expressing doubts because policy maturities were long overdue\nand media coverage suggested Dr. Cassidy’s predictions were inaccurate,\nPardo and other LP Entities insiders continued to represent that Dr. Cassidy’s\npredictions were accurate and that the policies would mature imminently. The\nLicensees disseminated these representations to the investors.\n\n\n 4\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n Throughout this time, the Licensees received commissions and fees\nunder their contracts with the LP Entities. Between 2008 and 2015, these\ncommissions and fees totaled more than $27.6 million. While investors knew\nthat a portion of their investment funds would be used to pay fees, they were\nnot given specifics as to how that money was distributed. On average, the\nLicensees received 12% of the money an investor provided in exchange for a\nfractional interest, which was well above the industry standard for a\ncommission in a securities transaction.\n Due to the large commissions paid to the Licensees—as well as large\ndistributions made to Pardo and other LP Entities executives—Creditors’\nTrust alleges that the LP Entities were insolvent for much of their existence\nprior to filing for bankruptcy. Because the life settlements were bad\ninvestments, each new purchase of a fractional interest created a liability to\nthe investor. And because the LP Entities were depleting all their resources\non commissions and distributions, they did not have sufficient funds to cover\nthose liabilities. Instead, the LP Entities—through the Licensees—continued\nto recruit new investors to keep the business funded. Eventually, however, the\nLP Entities no longer had enough capital to conduct their business operations\nor continue maintaining the policies that had not yet matured.\n As the fraudulent practices of the LP Entities came to light through\nmedia coverage, investors began to file class action lawsuits against the\ncompanies. See, e.g., Turnbow v. Life Partners, Inc., 2013 WL 3479884, at *1–\n2 (N.D. Tex. July 9, 2013). In addition, the SEC began investigating the LP\nEntities. The SEC filed suit based on its findings, and the Western District of\nTexas found that Pardo had “knowingly—or at least recklessly—violated\nsecurities laws.” SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 3d 615, 619\nn.1 (W.D. Tex. 2014), vacated in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 854\nF.3d at 789.\n 5\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n B.\n On January 20, 2015, Life Partners Holdings filed for bankruptcy\nprotection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Chapter 11 trustee\nfiled bankruptcy petitions on behalf of the LP subsidiaries, LPI and LPI\nFinancial Services, on May 19, 2015.\n The Chapter 11 trustee then filed a series of adversary proceedings on\nbehalf of the bankruptcy estates. One of the proceedings targeted Pardo and\nother LP Entities executives and insiders. See Moran, No. 4:15-CV-905, Dkt.\nNo. 16 (amended complaint). The district court assigned to that case withdrew\nthe bankruptcy reference and denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, some\nof which raised arguments similar to those raised by the Licensees here. Id.\nDkt. Nos. 5, 192. The case proceeded to trial, where a civil jury found that\nPardo was liable for fraud and that Pardo and other LP insiders were unjustly\nenriched. See id. Dkt. No. 359 (jury verdict). The district court’s final\njudgment awarded the LP Entities’ bankruptcy estates and the plaintiff-\ninvestors in the case more than $40 million in damages. Id. Dkt. No. 440 (final\njudgment).\n The five related adversary proceedings before this panel target the LP\nEntities’ Licensees. The Chapter 11 trustee filed the original complaint in this\nadversary proceeding in October 2015. The Chapter 11 trustee amended the\ncomplaint twice before the bankruptcy judge abated all adversary proceedings\npending confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan. The plan created Creditors’\nTrust and assigned it two types of claims: (1) claims for liabilities owed to the\nLP Entities’ bankruptcy estates (Estate Claims), which the Chapter 11 trustee\nhad previously asserted in the adversary proceedings; and (2) claims\npreviously held by individual LP Entities investors (Investor Claims), which\nCreditors’ Trust asserted for the first time in the third amended complaint.\n\n\n 6\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n After the Chapter 11 plan was confirmed, the bankruptcy judge lifted the\nabatement and proceeded to consider the adversary proceedings, including this\none. Creditors’ Trust then filed its third amended complaint, asserting the\nfollowing claims:\n (A) Estate Claims\n • Count 1: Actual fraudulent transfer under Texas Business &\n Commerce Code § 24.005(a)(1) through 11 U.S.C. § 544 (against\n all Licensees listed on Exhibit 4 of the third amended complaint).\n Exhibit 4 lists “the annual total commissions received by the\n Defendant Licensees from 2008 through February[] 2015.” Thus,\n Creditors’ Trust claims that the commissions the Licensees\n received from the LP Entities are fraudulent transfers that can be\n avoided under the Bankruptcy Code.\n • Count 2: Constructive fraudulent transfer under Texas Business\n & Commerce Code § 24.005(a)(2) through 11 U.S.C. § 544 (against\n all Licensees listed on Exhibit 4).\n • Count 3: Actual fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C.\n § 548(a)(1)(A) (against “Certain Licensees” listed on Exhibit 4).\n • Count 4: Constructive fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C.\n § 548(a)(1)(B) (against “Certain Licensees” listed on Exhibit 4). 3\n • Count 5: Preferences under 11 U.S.C. § 547 (against “Certain\n Licensees” listed on Exhibit 4). Creditors’ Trust claims that the\n\n\n\n 3 We have explained before that fraudulent transfer claims under the Texas Uniform\nFraudulent Transfer Act and the Bankruptcy Code differ in material ways. See, e.g., Janvey\nv. Golf Channel, Inc., 834 F.3d 570, 573 (5th Cir. 2016) (“The Supreme Court of Texas’s\nanswer interprets the concept of ‘value’ under TUFTA differently than we have understood\n‘value’ under . . . section 548(c) [of] the Bankruptcy Code.”). To the extent that these\ndifferences are relevant to our Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) analysis, we address\nthem below.\n 7\n\fCase: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n commissions received by “Certain Licensees” are also avoidable as\n preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code.\n • Count 6: Recovery of avoided transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 550\n (against all Licensees).\n • Count 7: Breach of contract (against all Licensees). Creditors’\n Trust later agreed to voluntarily abandon this claim, and it is not\n at issue on appeal.\n • Count 8: Equitable subordination of the Licensees’ claims against\n the LP Entities’ bankruptcy estates under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c)\n (against all Licensees).\n • Count 9: Disallowance of the Licensees’ claims against the LP\n Entities’ bankruptcy estates under 11 U.S.C. § 502(d) (against all\n Licensees).\n (B) Investor Claims\n • Count 10: Negligent misrepresentation (against “Certain\n Licensees,” with a reference to Exhibit 5 of the third amended\n complaint). Exhibit 5 is a “chart detailing the . . . relationship\n between Licensees and Investors with regard to sales to specific\n investors.” Creditors’ Trust’s negligent misrepresentation claims\n appear to be primarily based on the Licensees’ distribution of the\n LP Entities’ offering materials to investors.\n • Count 11: Breach of the Texas Securities Act (against “Certain\n Licensees,” with a reference to Exhibit 5). Creditors’ Trust claims\n that the fractional interests were “unregistered securities,” and\n “certain Licensees” were “unlicensed brokers engaged in the sale”\n of these securities.\n • Count 12: Breach of fiduciary duty (against “Certain Licensees,”\n with a reference to Exhibit 5). Creditors’ Trust claims that as\n 8\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n securities brokers, the Licensees owed the investors a fiduciary\n duty which they breached by making material\n misrepresentations. 4\n Many of the Licensees filed or amended previously filed motions to\ndismiss the third amended complaint. The district court withdrew the\nreference in the adversary proceeding and referred the motions to the\nbankruptcy judge. The bankruptcy judge held two hearings on the motions\nbefore filing his report and recommendation.\n The bankruptcy judge recommended dismissal of the fraudulent transfer\nclaims, the preference claim, the negligent misrepresentation claim, and the\nbreach of fiduciary duty claim. The judge further recommended that the Texas\nSecurities Act claim be dismissed in part on limitations grounds, and that the\nequitable subordination and disallowance claims be dismissed in part as to\nLicensees who did not file claims in the LP Entities’ bankruptcy cases. 5 As to\neach claim for which he recommended dismissal, the bankruptcy judge also\nrecommended that Creditors’ Trust be granted leave to amend the third\namended complaint.\n After reviewing the bankruptcy judge’s recommendations, the district\ncourt issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing all of Creditors’\nTrust’s claims against the Licensees with prejudice. In contrast to the\nbankruptcy judge’s recommendation, however, the district court declined to\npermit Creditors’ Trust to amend its complaint to correct the pleading defects.\n\n\n\n 4 Creditors’ Trust also asserted a constructive trust claim in the third amended\ncomplaint. However, as Creditors’ Trust acknowledges, a constructive trust is “a practical\nmechanism to enforce the substantive Counts” in its complaint—a remedy rather than a\nsubstantive claim. Accordingly, we leave the issue of whether that remedy is appropriate in\nthis case for the district court to address at a later procedural stage.\n\n 5 The bankruptcy judge did not recommend dismissal of the avoidance claim, but this\nclaim is derivative of Counts 1–5.\n 9\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nCreditors’ Trust then filed a motion for reconsideration, urging the court to\ngrant leave to amend the third amended complaint based on an “oral motion”\nCreditors’ Trust made before the bankruptcy judge. Creditors’ Trust attached\na fourth amended complaint with significantly longer exhibits which it insisted\naddressed the pleading issues identified in the district court’s order. The\ndistrict court denied the motion.\n II.\n Creditors’ Trust appeals three determinations by the district court:\n(1) its grant of the Licensees’ motions to dismiss; (2) its denial of leave to\namend the third amended complaint; and (3) its denial of the motion for\nreconsideration.\n A.\n We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal\nRule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. Castro v. Collecto, Inc., 634 F.3d 779,\n783 (5th Cir. 2011). Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain “a short and\nplain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]”\nFed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To satisfy Rule 8(a), “a complaint must contain\nsufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is\nplausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell\nAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A pleaded claim is plausible\nif the allegations in the complaint “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable\ninference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.\n Rule 9(b) imposes a heightened pleading standard in cases where the\nplaintiff alleges fraud or mistake: particularity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). When the\nRule 9(b) pleading standard applies, the complaint must contain factual\nallegations stating the “time, place, and contents of the false representations,\nas well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what\n[that person] obtained thereby.” Tuchman v. DSC Commc’ns Corp., 14 F.3d\n 10\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n1061, 1068 (5th Cir. 1994) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). In other\nwords, to properly allege fraud under Rule 9(b), the plaintiff must plead the\nwho, what, when, where, and why as to the fraudulent conduct. See id.\n The live pleading in this case is the 48-page third amended complaint, to\nwhich Creditors’ Trust has attached in support nearly 400 pages of exhibits.\nSee Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (“A written\ndocument that is attached to a complaint as an exhibit is considered part of the\ncomplaint and may be considered in a 12(b)(6) dismissal proceeding.”). 6 The\nthird amended complaint recites a complex set of detailed factual allegations\nand sets out twelve separate causes of action under which Creditors’ Trust\ninsists that it is entitled to relief. With respect to each of Creditors’ Trust’s\nclaims, we evaluate de novo whether the allegations in the third amended\ncomplaint adequately state a claim.\n 1. Counts 1 and 3 – Actual Fraudulent Transfer\n Creditors’ Trust’s first claim relies on the actual fraud provision of the\nTexas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA):\n A transfer made . . . by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor,\n whether the creditor’s claim arose before or within a reasonable\n time after the transfer was made . . . , if the debtor made the\n transfer . . . : (1) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any\n creditor of the debtor[.]\n\nTex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.005(a)(1). Thus, the elements of an actual\nfraudulent transfer under TUFTA are: (1) a creditor; (2) a debtor; (3) the\ndebtor transferred assets shortly before or after the creditor’s claim arose;\n(4) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any of the debtor’s creditors.\n\n\n\n 6 We caution litigants that this rule does not mean they can or should attach lengthy\nexhibits to their complaints in the hope of making otherwise deficient pleadings sufficient\nunder Rule 12(b)(6). However, in complex cases such as this one, documents that support a\nplaintiff’s claims and aggregate relevant information can be helpful attachments.\n 11\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nNwokedi v. Unlimited Restoration Specialists, Inc., 428 S.W.3d 191, 204–05\n(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). Creditors’ Trust brings this\nclaim through 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1). Count 3 relies on the Bankruptcy Code’s\nactual fraudulent transfer doctrine, set out in 11 U.S.C. § 548:\n The trustee may avoid any transfer . . . of an interest of the debtor\n in property . . . that was made or incurred on or within 2 years\n before the date of the filing of the petition, if the debtor voluntarily\n or involuntarily—\n (A) made such transfer . . . with actual intent to hinder,\n delay, or defraud any entity to which the debtor was or\n became, on or after the date that such transfer was\n made . . . , indebted[.]\n\n11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A). As noted above, Creditors’ Trust’s theory for its\nfraudulent transfer claims is that the commissions the LP Entities paid the\nLicensees are avoidable fraudulent transfers.\n As an initial matter, Creditors’ Trust argues that although Counts 1 and\n3 are actual fraudulent transfer claims, the Rule 8(a) pleading standard\napplies. The bankruptcy judge agreed, relying on Judge Godbey’s opinion in\nJanvey v. Alguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d 662 (N.D. Tex. 2011). The district court\napplied Rule 9(b). Consistent with Judge Godbey’s reasoning in Alguire,\nCreditors’ Trust emphasizes that its actual fraudulent transfer claims do not\nrequire any allegation that the defendant Licensees engaged in fraud; only the\nfraudulent conduct of the debtor LP Entities is relevant to Counts 1 and 3.\nAlguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 676 (holding that there is “no principled reason” to\napply Rule 9 to TUFTA actual fraudulent transfer claims because “[t]here is\nno allegation that the [d]efendant committed any act of fraud” (alterations in\noriginal)).\n We have not previously addressed the question of whether an actual\nfraudulent transfer claim is subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading\nrequirements. See Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 599 (5th Cir. 2011) (“We\n 12\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nneed not and do not address the issue of whether heightened pleading is\nrequired.”). And the district courts in this circuit are not in unanimity on this\nquestion. Compare Guffy v. Brown (In re Brown Med. Ctr., Inc.), 552 B.R. 165,\n167 (S.D. Tex. 2016) (applying Rule 9(b)), with Alguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 675–\n76. But we observe that at least three other circuits—the First, Second, and\nEighth Circuits—have concluded that Rule 9(b) applies. In re Lawson, 791\nF.3d 214, 217 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2015) (noting that Rule 9 is the appropriate\npleading standard for an actual fraudulent transfer claim under the Rhode\nIsland Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act); In re Sharp Int’l Corp., 403 F.3d 43,\n56 (2d Cir. 2005) (New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act); Stoebner v.\nOpportunity Fin., LLC, 909 F.3d 219, 225, 226 & n.6 (8th Cir. 2018) (Minnesota\nUniform Fraudulent Transfer Act); see also Pricaspian Dev. Corp. v. Martucci,\n759 F. App’x 131, 135–36 (3d Cir. 2019) (New Jersey Uniform Fraudulent\nTransfer Act); Nw. Nat. Ins. Co. of Milwaukee, Wis. v. Joslyn, 53 F.3d 331, at\n*1, 4 (6th Cir. 1995) (unpublished) (Ohio’s fraudulent transfer statute);\nNishibun v. Prepress Sols., Inc., 111 F.3d 138, at *1 (9th Cir. 1997)\n(unpublished) (California’s fraudulent transfer statute); 5A Charles Alan\nWright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1297 (4th ed. 2019\nupdate) (“Claims of fraudulent transfer or fraudulent conveyance are also\nsubject to the heightened standard of Rule 9(b).”).\n The Fourth, Seventh, 7 Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have not yet\naddressed the issue, and the district courts in the Fourth, Tenth, and Eleventh\n\n\n\n\n 7 The Seventh Circuit has held that constructive fraudulent transfer claims under the\nIllinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act are subject to Rule 9(b), Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v.\nLease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1078–79 (7th Cir. 1997), and district courts in the\ncircuit have applied this holding to actual fraudulent transfer claims as well. See Desmond\nv. Taxi Affiliation Servs. LLC, 344 F. Supp. 3d 915, 923–24, 926 (N.D. Ill. 2018).\n\n 13\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nCircuits, like ours, are divided. 8 Here, because Creditors’ Trust’s Count 1 and\n3 allegations are sufficient under either standard, we need not weigh in on this\nvexing question.\n First, Creditors’ Trust adequately states a claim under Rule 8(a) and\nTwombly. The third amended complaint identifies the Licensees—listed by\nname in Exhibit 4—as the creditors to whom the transfers were made and the\nLP Entities as the debtor-transferors. The Licensees complain that Creditors’\nTrust has not specified which LP Entity made the transfers, but in cases\ninvolving a Ponzi or Ponzi-like scheme, a plaintiff “may establish fraudulent\nintent by showing that the . . . enterprise operated as a Ponzi scheme” without\nproving which of the entities involved in the scheme was the transferor.\nAlguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 672 (citing Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 511, 558\n(5th Cir. 2006)); see id. at 677. And it can hardly be argued that the third\namended complaint fails to allege an actual intent to defraud on the part of the\nLP Entities—the complaint is replete with allegations to this effect, including\nfacts corresponding directly to the “badges of fraud” listed in the Texas actual\nfraudulent transfer statute. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.005(b).\n If Rule 9(b) is the applicable pleading standard, the Count 1 and 3\nallegations satisfy it as well. Exhibit 4 sets out the details of the allegedly\nfraudulent transfers—including the transferor, transferees, amounts, and\ntime period—and the complaint itself contains pages of allegations detailing\nthe underlying fraudulent scheme. See Alguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 677 (finding\n\n\n\n 8 Fourth Circuit: Compare Hongda Chem USA, LLC v. Shangyu Sunfit Chem. Co.,\n2016 WL 4703725, at *5 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2016) (applying Rule 9(b)), with Bell v. Disner,\n2014 WL 6978690, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 9, 2014) (applying Rule 8). Tenth Circuit: Compare\nWagner v. Galbreth, 500 B.R. 42, 53 (D.N.M. 2013) (applying Rule 9(b)), with Touchstone\nGrp., LLC v. Rink, 913 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1083 (D. Colo. 2012) (applying Rule 8). Eleventh\nCircuit: Compare Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 2007 WL 2872463, at *6 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 26, 2007)\n(applying Rule 9(b)), with Pearlman v. Alexis, 2009 WL 3161830, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25,\n2009) (applying Rule 8).\n 14\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nfraudulent transfer allegations sufficient under Rule 9(b) where they included\nthe time period in which the transfers occurred; the details of the underlying\nPonzi scheme, including that the defendants received compensation from the\nPonzi scheme “in the form of funds derived from unsuspecting investors[]”; and\nthe total amount of compensation each defendant received).\n With respect to the timing of the transfers, the Licensees have not\ndemonstrated that any transfers are barred by TUFTA’s four-year statute of\nlimitations for the reasons explained in the bankruptcy judge’s report and\nrecommendation. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.010(a)(1). Under the\nBankruptcy Code, however, actual fraudulent transfer claims are barred as to\ntransfers made more than two years before the petition date. 11 U.S.C.\n§ 548(a)(1). Exhibit 4 lists transfers occurring as far back as 2008, some of\nwhich are plainly untimely under this statute of repose. Accordingly, we affirm\nthe district court’s dismissal of Count 3 only as to transfers made by Life\nPartners Holdings before January 20, 2013, and transfers made by LPI and\nLPI Financial Services before May 19, 2013. Because we conclude that Count\n1 and the remainder of Count 3 are adequately pleaded, we hold that the\ndistrict court erred in dismissing these claims.\n 2. Counts 2 and 4 – Constructive Fraudulent Transfer\n TUFTA’s constructive fraudulent transfer provision, which Creditors’\nTrust relies on in Count 2 of the third amended complaint, stipulates:\n A transfer made . . . by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor,\n whether the creditor’s claim arose before or within a reasonable\n time after the transfer was made . . . , if the debtor made the\n transfer . . . : (2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value\n in exchange for the transfer . . . , and the debtor:\n (A) was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a\n transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor\n were unreasonably small in relation to the business or\n transaction; or\n\n 15\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n (B) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have\n believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the\n debtor’s ability to pay as they became due.\n\nTex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.005(a)(2). Creditors’ Trust also brings this claim\nthrough 11 U.S.C. § 544. The elements of a constructive fraudulent transfer\nunder Texas law are the same as actual fraudulent transfer except instead of\npleading fraudulent intent, the plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating: (1) a\nlack of reasonably equivalent value for the transfer; and (2) the transferor was\n“financially vulnerable” or insolvent at the time of the transaction. See Janvey\nv. Golf Channel, Inc., 487 S.W.3d 560, 562, 566 & n.21 (Tex. 2016); Tex. Bus.\n& Com. Code § 24.006(a). Creditors’ Trust’s Bankruptcy Code constructive\nfraudulent transfer claim, labeled Count 4, requires the following:\n The trustee may avoid any transfer . . . of an interest of the debtor\n in property . . . that was made or incurred on or within 2 years\n before the date of the filing of the petition, if the debtor voluntarily\n or involuntarily—\n (B)(i) received less than a reasonably equivalent value in\n exchange for such transfer . . . ; and\n (ii)(I) was insolvent on the date that such transfer was\n made . . . , or became insolvent as a result of such\n transfer . . . [.]\n11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B).\n As with actual fraudulent transfer claims, we have not addressed the\nquestion of whether the Rule 9(b) pleading standard applies to constructive\nfraudulent transfer claims. District courts in the Fifth Circuit have suggested\nthat constructive fraudulent transfer claims are only subject to Rule 8(a). See,\ne.g., Janvey v. Univ. of Miami, 2013 WL 12361381, at *4–5 (N.D. Tex. July 11,\n2013); E. Poultry Distribs., Inc. v. Yarto Puez, 2001 WL 34664163, at *2 (N.D.\nTex. Dec. 3, 2001). In Eastern Poultry, Judge Lynn emphasized that\nconstructive fraudulent transfer allows for “fraudulent transfer without intent\n\n\n 16\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nto defraud,” citing to the Southern District of New York’s reasoning that “fraud\nhas nothing to do with [a] constructive fraudulent transfer claim” because\n“[t]he transaction is based on the transferor’s financial condition and the\nsufficiency of the consideration provided by the transferee.” E. Poultry, 2001\nWL 34664163, at *2; In re White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp., 222 B.R.\n417, 428–29 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).\n While this reasoning has persuasive value, two of our sister circuits have\nheld that constructive fraudulent transfer claims are subject to Rule 9(b). Gen.\nElec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1078–79 (7th Cir.\n1997) (Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act); Stoebner, 909 F.3d at 225,\n226 & n.6 (Minnesota Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act). No other circuits\nappear to have directly addressed the issue. But see In re Sharp, 403 F.3d at\n56 (applying Rule 9(b) only to actual fraudulent transfer claims under the New\nYork Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act). Because we conclude that the\nCount 2 and 4 allegations satisfy both Rule 8(a) and Rule 9(b), we do not need\nto reach this question.\n Creditors’ Trust’s third amended complaint satisfies Rule 8(a), largely\nfor the same reasons that the Count 1 and 3 allegations are sufficient. On the\nissue of insolvency, Creditors’ Trust has plausibly alleged that the LP Entities\nwere insolvent for much of their existence, explaining that each new purchase\nof a fractional interest created a liability to the investor that the LP Entities\nhad insufficient funds to cover because they were paying commissions to the\nLicensees and distributions to insiders. See Alguire, 647 F.3d at 597 (“[A] Ponzi\nscheme ‘is, as a matter of law, insolvent from its inception.’” (quoting Warfield,\n436 F.3d at 558)). In addition, Creditors’ Trust has adequately alleged a lack\nof reasonably equivalent value because providing services in furtherance of a\nfraudulent Ponzi-like scheme, as Creditors’ Trust alleges the Licensees did,\n\n\n 17\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\ndoes not confer reasonably equivalent value as a matter of law. See Warfield,\n436 F.3d at 560.\n Even if Counts 2 and 4 are subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading\nstandard, they are alleged with sufficient particularity to satisfy that standard.\nSee Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 128 F.3d at 1080 (holding that constructive\nfraudulent transfer pleadings complied with Rule 9(b) where the complaint\nalleged that the transferor did not receive reasonably equivalent value and\nthat the transfers “rendered [the transferor] insolvent and effectively\nprecluded” it from paying its debts (internal quotation marks and citation\nomitted)); Janvey v. Suarez, 978 F. Supp. 2d 685, 696, 701 (N.D. Tex. 2013)\n(applying Alguire’s reasoning regarding Rule 9(b) equally to a TUFTA\nconstructive fraudulent transfer claim).\n Notwithstanding the above, the Licensees contend that Counts 2 and 4\nare barred at least in part by the relevant statutes of repose. Compare Tex.\nBus. & Com. Code § 24.010(a)(2) (TUFTA’s four-year state of repose), with 11\nU.S.C. § 548(a)(1) (Bankruptcy Code’s two-year statute of repose). We agree\nfor the reasons explained by the bankruptcy judge. We therefore dismiss\nCount 2 only as to transfers from Life Partners Holdings that occurred before\nJanuary 20, 2011, and transfers from LPI and LPI Financial Services that\noccurred before May 19, 2011. We also dismiss Count 4 only as to transfers\nfrom Life Partners Holdings that occurred before January 20, 2013, and\ntransfers from LPI and LPI Financial Services that occurred before May 19,\n2013. Because the remainder of Counts 2 and 4 are adequately pleaded under\nRule 8(a), the district court erred in dismissing these claims in their entirety.\n 3. Count 5 – Preferential Transfer\n The elements of a Bankruptcy Code preference claim are as follows:\n [T]he trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in\n property—\n\n 18\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n (1) to or for the benefit of a creditor;\n (2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor\n before such transfer was made;\n (3) made while the debtor was insolvent;\n (4) made—\n (A) on or within 90 days before the date of the filing of\n the petition . . . ; and\n (5) that enables such creditor to receive more than such\n creditor would receive if—\n (A) the case were a case under chapter 7 of this title;\n (B) the transfer had not been made; and\n (C) such creditor received payment of such debt to the\n extent provided by the provisions of this title.\n\n11 U.S.C. § 547(b). In the third amended complaint, Creditors’ Trust clarifies\nthat its preference claim applies only to transfers that were made within 90\ndays before each of the LP Entities’ bankruptcy petitions were filed.\n The parties do not dispute that Rule 8(a) applies to Count 5. The third\namended complaint’s allegations satisfy this standard as to elements 1–4\nabove. The complaint alleges that the LP Entities transferred commissions to\nthe Licensees (1) for the Licensees’ benefit; (2) pursuant to a contractual\nobligation that the LP Entities owed to the Licensees; (3) while the LP Entities\nwere insolvent, as explained in supra Section II.A.2.; and (4) within 90 days\nbefore each LP Entity filed its bankruptcy petition. However, the third\namended complaint does not plead any facts relevant to element 5: it does not\nexplain what the Licensees would have received in a chapter 7 case, nor does\nit state whether the commissions were greater than that amount. Accordingly,\nbecause Count 5 does not contain allegations on this essential element of a\npreferential transfer, we hold that the district court properly dismissed this\nclaim as inadequately pleaded. See Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d\n228, 257 (5th Cir. 2009) (explaining that Twombly requires allegations on\n“each element of a claim”).\n\n\n 19\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n 4. Counts 6 and 9 – Avoidance and Disallowance\n As the Licensees acknowledge, Creditors’ Trust’s avoidance and\ndisallowance claims are remedial. Under the Bankruptcy Code, if Creditors’\nTrust demonstrates that the transfers to the Licensees were fraudulent or\npreferential, it is entitled to avoid these transfers and recover them on behalf\nof the bankruptcy estates. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 548(a)(1), 550(a). In\naddition, the Licensees’ claims against the bankruptcy estates will be\ndisallowed in whole or in part. See 11 U.S.C. § 502(d). Thus, these two claims\nare derivative of and dependent on Creditors’ Trust’s Count 1–5 allegations.\nBecause Counts 1–4 of the third amended complaint are adequately pleaded,\nwe hold that the district court erred in dismissing derivative Counts 6 and 9.\n 5. Count 8 – Equitable Subordination\n Under 11 U.S.C. § 510, “the court may . . . under principles of equitable\nsubordination, subordinate for purposes of distribution all or part of an allowed\nclaim to all or part of another allowed claim” in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 510(c).\nIn the Fifth Circuit, equitable subordination is appropriate when (1) the\nclaimant engaged in inequitable conduct; (2) the misconduct resulted in harm\nto the debtor’s other creditors or conferred an unfair advantage on the\nclaimant; and (3) equitable subordination is not inconsistent with the\nBankruptcy Code. Wooley v. Faulkner (In re SI Restructuring, Inc.), 532 F.3d\n355, 360 (5th Cir. 2008). “[A] claim should be subordinated only to the extent\nnecessary to offset the harm which the . . . creditors have suffered as a result\nof the inequitable conduct.” Id. at 360–61. This court typically only applies\nequitable subordination in three types of cases: (1) when a fiduciary of the\ndebtor misuses the relationship to the disadvantage of other creditors;\n(2) when a third party controls the debtor to the disadvantage of other\ncreditors; and (3) when a third party actually defrauds other creditors. Official\n\n\n 20\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nComm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Cajun Elec. Power Coop., Inc. (In re Cajun\nElec. Power Coop., Inc.), 119 F.3d 349, 357 (5th Cir. 1997).\n The Licensees insist that the equitable subordination claim is subject to\nRule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard because it is “fraud-based.” We\ndisagree for the reason set out by the bankruptcy judge:\n“[e]quitable subordination claims, by their nature, do not require the\nestablishment of fraud by the defendant.” Equitable subordination requires\nonly “inequitable conduct” on the part of the claimant, so Creditors’ Trust need\nonly satisfy Rule 8(a) to adequately plead this claim. See In re SI\nRestructuring, 532 F.3d at 360.\n While the third amended complaint does contain allegations to address\nthe elements of equitable subordination, the allegations are largely conclusory.\nFor example, the third amended complaint does not allege facts regarding the\nextent of the harm that any individual investor suffered, stating only that the\nLicensees’ conduct resulted in “the transfer of substantial value” to the\nLicensees “to the direct detriment” of the investors. The exhibits attached to\nthe third amended complaint do not appear to provide this information either.\nThese types of conclusory recitations fail to state a claim under Rule 8(a). See\nTwombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause\nof action will not do[.]”). Moreover, the third amended complaint does not\nallege that the Licensees were fiduciaries of the debtor LP Entities or that the\nLicensees controlled the LP Entities, and Creditors’ Trust concedes that it has\nnot alleged that the Licensees actually defrauded the investors. Thus, the\nthird amended complaint fails to state an equitable subordination claim, and\nthe district court properly dismissed Count 8.\n 6. Count 10 – Negligent Misrepresentation\n Under Texas law, the elements of negligent misrepresentation are:\n\n\n 21\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n (1) the representation is made by a defendant in the course of his\n business, or in a transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest;\n (2) the defendant supplies “false information” for the guidance of\n others in their business; (3) the defendant did not exercise\n reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the\n information; and (4) the plaintiff suffers pecuniary loss by\n justifiably relying on the representation.\n\nFed. Land Bank Ass’n of Tyler v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1991).\n We must first decide which pleading standard applies to Creditors’\nTrust’s negligent misrepresentation claim. “Although Rule 9(b) by its terms\ndoes not apply to negligent misrepresentation claims, this court has applied\nthe heightened pleading requirements when the parties have not urged a\nseparate focus on the negligent misrepresentation claims.” Benchmark Elecs.,\nInc. v. J.M. Huber Corp., 343 F.3d 719, 723 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Williams v.\nWMX Techs., Inc., 112 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1997)). Because Creditors’ Trust\nhas identified a separate focus on its negligent misrepresentation claims, Rule\n9(b) does not apply here. In Williams, the fraud and negligent\nmisrepresentation claims relied on the same misrepresentations, 112 F.2d at\n177, and in Benchmark, they were “based on the same set of alleged facts.” 343\nF.3d at 723. Here, however, Creditors’ Trust’s negligent misrepresentation\nclaim relies on a different set of misrepresentations—the offering materials—\nthan its fraudulent transfer claims, which rely on the commissions paid to the\nLicensees as the operative fraudulent conduct. The two claims also rely on\ndifferent sets of underlying facts: for the fraudulent transfer claims, the\nrelevant facts are the payment of commissions to the Licensees; for the\nnegligent misrepresentation claim, the relevant facts are the distribution of\nthe LP offering materials to investors. Count 10 is thus subject only to Rule\n8(a). See Am. Realty Tr., Inc. v. Hamilton Lane Advisors, Inc., 115 F. App’x\n662, 668 & n.30 (5th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing Williams and Benchmark and\n\n\n 22\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 23 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nfinding that “plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation claims are only subject to\nthe liberal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)”).\n The negligent misrepresentation allegations in the third amended\ncomplaint satisfy Rule 8(a). Specifically, the complaint explains that (1) the\nLicensees distributed the offering materials in the course of their employment\nand had a pecuniary interest through their commissions; (2) the offering\nmaterials contained an array of false statements and were provided to the\ninvestors; (3) the Licensees distributed the offering materials when they knew\nor should have known that the fractional interests were bad investments; and\n(4) the investors justifiably relied by purchasing fractional interests and were\nharmed “in the minimum amount of the price paid for their investment[s].” We\ntherefore hold that the district court erred in dismissing Count 10 as\ninadequately pleaded. 9\n 7. Count 11 – Violation of the Texas Securities Act\n The Texas Securities Act provides that:\n A person who offers or sells a security in violation of Section 7, 9 .\n . . , 12, [or] 23C . . . of this Act is liable to the person buying the\n security from him, who may sue either at law or in equity for\n rescission or for damages if the buyer no longer owns the security.\n\nTex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 581-33(A)(1). Section 7 of the Act prohibits the sale of\nunregistered securities, id. art. 581-7, and Section 12 sets out requirements for\nthe registration of a seller of securities, id. art. 581-12. Section 9 of the Act\nrequires the disclosure of material facts in an offer of sale for a security. Id.\nart. 581-9(C). Finally, Section 23(C) proscribes false, misleading, or deceptive\noffers to sell that are prohibited by a cease publication order. Id. art. 581-\n23(C).\n\n\n\n We agree with the bankruptcy judge’s conclusion that this claim is not barred by\n 9\n\nlimitations for the reasons stated in the bankruptcy judge’s report and recommendation.\n 23\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 24 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n The parties agree that Rule 8(a) applies to Count 11. The allegations on\nthis count do not adequately state a claim. The third amended complaint does\nnot clearly allege which sections of the Texas Securities Act the Licensees\nviolated. Presumably, because the third amended complaint states that the\nLicensees were “unlicensed brokers engaged in the sale of unregistered\nsecurities,” Creditors’ Trust focuses on Sections 7 and 12. However, because\nthe third amended complaint does not explain which Licensees are the “certain\nLicensees” who violated the Act, it fails to give those defendants fair notice of\nthe claim against them. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In addition, as the\ndistrict court noted, neither the third amended complaint nor Exhibit 5\ncontains information indicating which investors still own fractional interests,\nso it is impossible to determine whether the remedy sought by each investor is\nrescission or damages. For these reasons, the district court properly dismissed\nCreditors’ Trust’s Texas Securities Act claim.\n 8. Count 12 – Breach of Fiduciary Duty\n The parties disagree as to whether Rule 9(b) applies to this claim. We\nhave noted in an unpublished case that Rule 9(b) governs breach of fiduciary\nduty claims that are “predicated on fraud.” Brown v. Bilek, 401 F. App’x 889,\n893 (5th Cir. 2010); see also In re Elec. Data Sys. Corp. ERISA Litig., 305 F.\nSupp. 2d 658, 672 (E.D. Tex. 2004) (“Only a breach of fiduciary duty claim\nwhich includes a fraud claim implicates Rule 9(b).”). But Creditors’ Trust has\nnot pleaded a breach of fiduciary duty claim that is “predicated on fraud.”\nInstead, the third amended complaint alleges that the Licensees disseminated\nthe misrepresentations in the offering materials negligently. Thus, the breach\nof fiduciary duty claim does not rely on fraudulent conduct by the Licensees,\nbut instead relies on the Licensees’ failure to exercise reasonable care. Count\n12 is therefore not subject to Rule 9(b).\n\n\n 24\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 25 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n A Texas law claim for breach of fiduciary duty requires the plaintiff to\nplead the following elements: “(1) the existence of a fiduciary duty, (2) breach\nof the duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages.” First United Pentecostal Church\nof Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214, 220 (Tex. 2017). Texas courts have\nfound that financial advisors owe their clients a fiduciary duty. E.g., W.\nReserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. Graben, 233 S.W.3d 360, 374 (Tex. App.—\nFort Worth 2007, no pet.). And this court has held that brokers owe their\ncustomers a fiduciary duty. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,\n834 F.2d 523, 530 (5th Cir. 1987). However, as we explained in Romano, “the\nnature of the fiduciary duty owed will vary, depending on the relationship\nbetween the broker and the investor.” Id. Thus, because the duty owed is\ncontingent on the nature of the fiduciary relationship, the plaintiff must plead\nsome facts as to the nature of the relationship to state a plausible claim that\nthat a fiduciary duty has been breached. See id. (“[T]he duty to disclose\ninformation about risk will vary depending on the circumstances and the\nnature of the relationship[.]” (quoting Clayton Brokerage Co. v. Commodity\nFutures Trading Comm’n, 794 F.2d 573, 582 (11th Cir. 1986))).\n The third amended complaint does not contain any allegations regarding\nthe relationship between any specific Licensee and any specific investor.\nImportantly, it does not state facts regarding “the degree of trust” placed in the\nLicensee or “the intelligence and personality” of the investor, so the nature of\nthe fiduciary duty owed cannot be ascertained from the pleadings. See id. As\na result, the third amended complaint does not provide sufficient facts to allege\nthat any fiduciary duty has been breached by any individual Licensee. Finally,\nthe third amended complaint also limits Count 12 to “certain Licensees,” but\ndoes not explain which Licensees fall within that group. The district court\ntherefore properly dismissed Creditors’ Trust’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.\n\n\n 25\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 26 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n For the reasons described, we hold that the district court erred in\ndismissing Counts 1–4, 6, 9, and 10 as inadequately pleaded. 10 However, we\naffirm the district court’s dismissal of Counts 5, 8, 11, and 12 under Rule\n12(b)(6).\n B.\n Even if a plaintiff’s pleadings are deficient under Rule 12(b)(6), a district\ncourt should “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R.\nCiv. P. 15(a)(2). In fact, “Rule 15(a) ‘evinces a bias in favor of granting leave\nto amend.’” Thomas v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 832 F.3d 586, 590 (5th Cir. 2016)\n(quoting Hermann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 302 F.3d 552, 566 (5th\nCir. 2002)). “[P]ermissible reasons for denying a motion for leave to amend\ninclude ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,\nrepeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue\nprejudice to the opposing party . . . , futility of amendment, etc.’” Id. at 591\n(quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Leave to amend need not\nbe granted when the amended pleading “would not withstand a motion to\ndismiss for failure to state a claim.” Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 360 n.7 (5th\nCir. 2001). We review the denial of a motion for leave to amend for an abuse\nof discretion. Thomas, 832 F.3d at 590. However, where the denial of leave to\namend was based solely on futility, we apply a de novo standard of review\ninstead. Id.\n In its order of dismissal, the district court emphasized that Creditors’\nTrust had not sought leave to amend before the district court issued its final\njudgment. Creditors’ Trust contends that it did indeed request leave to amend.\nIt explains the relevant procedural context as follows: At the first hearing\nbefore the bankruptcy judge, the Licensees “repeatedly correlated the[ir Rule\n\n\n 10 On remand, Creditors’ Trust may still wish to replead these claims for clarity.\n 26\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 27 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n12(b)(6)] challenges with the manner in which the Creditors’ Trust had utilized\n‘Exhibit 4’ to the Third Amended Complaint to aggregate pertinent\ninformation[.]” In response to these specific complaints about the third\namended complaint, Creditors’ Trust made the following statements:\n If the Court . . . says that we need to have an Exhibit [4] 11 that\n runs for thousands of pages and has every payment and every date\n of payment, that’s within our ability and we would certainly\n appreciate leave to do so if the Court feels that our pleadings need\n to go that far.\n . . . Well, here, I’m advising the Court that . . . it would not\n be futile to ask us to expand Exhibit [4]. We can certainly do that.\n . . . [W]e believe that Exhibit [4] was reasonable under the\n circumstances, and if the Court disagrees, we would ask for leave\n to fix it.\n\nCreditors’ Trust characterizes these statements as a sufficient motion for leave\nto amend the third amended complaint. We agree.\n A party requesting leave to amend its pleadings must “give the court\nsome notice of the nature of his or her proposed amendments.” Thomas, 832\nF.3d at 590. The party requesting amendment must describe with\nparticularity the grounds for the amendment and the relief sought, but a\n“formal motion” is not required. Id. For his part, the bankruptcy judge appears\nto have found that Creditors’ Trust’s oral statement properly requested leave\nbecause he recommended that the district court permit repleading. And given\nthe informal nature of bankruptcy court proceedings, it is not unusual that\nCreditors’ Trust did not follow its oral request up with a written motion. 12\n\n\n 11The hearings before the bankruptcy judge were joint hearings in all five adversary\nproceedings. In the live pleadings in three of those cases, Nos. 17-11480, 18-10051, and 18-\n10056, the equivalent of Exhibit 4 here was instead labeled Exhibit 5. Thus, the parties’\nreferences to Exhibit 5 at the hearing encompass Exhibit 4 in this case as well.\n\n 12Although Creditors’ Trust’s briefs do not address it, Creditors’ Trust did make a\nwritten request to amend in the district court before final judgment. In its response to the\nLicensees’ objections to the bankruptcy judge’s report and recommendation, Creditors’ Trust\n 27\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 28 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nBecause the oral statement gave the court notice of the nature of the\namendment—expanding Exhibit 4—and the grounds—repleading would not\nbe futile because Creditors’ Trust had the ability to provide further detail about\nthe transfers to the Licensees—we hold that Creditors’ Trust properly moved\nfor leave to amend before final judgment.\n The district court’s dismissal order explained that it was declining to\npermit leave to amend because the Licensees’ motions to dismiss alerted\nCreditors’ Trust to the deficiencies in its pleadings; Creditors’ Trust did not\nindicate in its response to the motions that it could replead to correct the\npleading issues; and due to the number of complaint amendments it had\nalready made, Creditors’ Trust had “had a fair opportunity to make [its] case.”\nWhile it is true that the Licensees’ motions identified many of the pleading\nissues that the district court relied upon, Creditors’ Trust had a good-faith\nbasis for believing that its pleadings were sufficient: it used the same pleading\nmethodology in its case against Pardo and the LP insiders, and the district\ncourt there denied Rule 12(b)(6) challenges similar to those made in this case.\nSee Moran, No. 4:15-CV-905, Dkt. No. 192. Moreover, Creditors’ Trust\nattempted to address the alleged pleading defects in its second and third\namended complaints, both of which it filed well before the bankruptcy judge\nissued his report and recommendation—the first time a court found that its\npleadings were deficient. In addition, Creditors’ Trust’s third complaint\namendment was made in response to the confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan\nin the underlying bankruptcy case, which broadened the nature of the claims\nthat Creditors’ Trust could assert.\n\n\n\n\nasked the district court to accept the recommendation to grant leave to amend and offered to\nfile “more detailed charts.” The district court acknowledged this request in a footnote in its\norder on the motions to dismiss.\n 28\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 29 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\n Considering the above facts and circumstances, we conclude that the\nLicensees have not demonstrated undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on\nthe part of Creditors’ Trust, nor have they convinced the court that permitting\nCreditors’ Trust to replead would be unduly prejudicial. It was therefore an\nabuse of discretion for the district court to deny leave to amend for any of these\nreasons. See Brown v. Taylor, 911 F.3d 235, 247 (5th Cir. 2018) (district court\nabused its discretion in denying leave to amend where plaintiff explained why\nhe believed his first amended complaint was sufficient, offered a proposed\namendment, and had not repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies). The only\nproper ground on which the district court could have declined to grant leave to\namend was futility. Accordingly, we will evaluate whether repleading each of\nCreditors’ Trust’s claims would be futile based on its oral motion for leave to\namend. See Thomas, 832 F.3d at 592 (evaluating futility based on specific\namendments plaintiff requested).\n The pleading defects that the district court and bankruptcy judge\nidentified with Counts 1–4 resulted largely from the unique pleading\nmethodology used in the third amended complaint. Specifically, Creditors’\nTrust relies on Exhibit 4 to set out the details of the transfers it wishes to avoid\nas either fraudulent or preferential transfers. Exhibit 4, in turn, lists the\nLicensees’ names and the sum of the transfers allegedly received by each\nLicensee annually from 2008 to 2015. Exhibit 4 does not, however, identify the\ntransferor entity for each transfer, the amount of any particular transfer, or\nthe specific date on which any transfer was made. As we explained in Section\nII.A., this information is not required to adequately state a claim on Counts 1–\n4, but the district court expressly relied on these omissions to dismiss these\ncounts.\n The substance of Creditors’ Trust’s oral request to replead at the first\nbankruptcy hearing reveals that it possesses the kind of detailed information\n 29\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 30 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nabout the alleged fraudulent transfers—dates, amounts, etc.—that the district\ncourt held was necessary to adequately state a claim. And the specific\namendment to the third amended complaint that Creditors’ Trust suggested—\nexpanding Exhibit 4—would include this information in the next iteration of\nthe complaint. Thus, even if the district court correctly dismissed Counts 1–4\non these grounds, repleading to add specificity regarding the allegedly\nfraudulent transfers would not have been futile. 13 Accordingly, the district\ncourt erred in declining to grant leave to amend the allegations on Counts 1–\n4. And because Counts 6 and 9 are derivative of Counts 1–4, the district court\nimproperly denied leave to amend those claims as well.\n Turning to Count 5, while expanding Exhibit 4 as Creditors’ Trust\nrequested would provide additional information relevant to this claim, it would\nnot address the third amended complaint’s failure to plead element 5 of a\npreferential transfer: that the Licensees’ commissions were greater than the\namount they would have received through a chapter 7 bankruptcy. See\nLormand, 565 F.3d at 257. Therefore, granting leave to amend as to Count 5\nwould have been futile.\n As for the other claims that Creditors’ Trust asserted in the third\namended complaint—Count 8, equitable subordination; Count 10, negligent\nmisrepresentation; Count 11, violations of the Texas Securities Act; and Count\n12, breach of fiduciary duty—Exhibit 4 does not contain information relevant\nto these causes of action. In fact, Counts 10–12 expressly rely on a different\ncomplaint exhibit, Exhibit 5, to aggregate the pertinent details. As a result,\n\n\n\n 13 The proposed fourth amended complaint that Creditors’ Trust submitted with its\nmotion for reconsideration confirms that expanding Exhibit 4 would not be futile. The\nexpanded Exhibit 4 attached to that complaint—now re-labeled as Exhibit 1—lists each\nallegedly fraudulent or preferential transfer in meticulous detail, setting out the date,\namount, transferor, transferee, and purpose, as well as the creditors it alleges were defrauded\nas a result of that transfer. This amendment cures any pleading defects in Counts 1–4.\n 30\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 31 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nexpanding Exhibit 4 would not address the pleading deficiencies in Counts 8,\n11, and 12 that we described in the previous section, nor would it address the\npleading defects the district court identified in Count 10. Because this is the\nonly complaint amendment that Creditors’ Trust suggested in its oral motion\nfor leave to amend, granting the motion would have been futile as to these\nclaims. Thus, the district court did not err in declining to permit Creditors’\nTrust to replead Counts 8, 10, 11, and 12.\n C.\n This court reviews the denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse\nof discretion. See ICEE Distribs., Inc. v. J&J Snack Foods Corp., 445 F.3d 841,\n847 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, the district court’s decision need only\nbe reasonable. Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir.\n1993). This court construes a motion for reconsideration filed within 28 days\nof final judgment as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or\namend the district court’s judgment. Mason v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 671 F.\nApp’x 880, 884 (5th Cir. 2016); see also Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 303\n& n.7 (5th Cir. 2010). “A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule\n59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must\npresent newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments\nwhich could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” Schiller\nv. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal\nquotation marks omitted) (quoting Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854,\n863–64 (5th Cir. 2003)).\n Because we conclude that Counts 1–4, 6, and 9 were adequately\npleaded—or, in the alternative, that the district court should have granted\nleave to amend—we need not reach the question of whether the district court\nalso erred in denying Creditors’ Trust’s motion for reconsideration with respect\nto those counts. The same can be said for Count 10, which we also conclude\n 31\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 32 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nwas adequately pleaded in the third amended complaint. As for Creditors’\nTrust’s remaining claims—Counts 5, 8, 11, and 12—the district court properly\ndismissed them both because they were inadequately pleaded and because\nCreditors’ Trust’s proposed amendment was futile as to these claims. We next\nconsider whether the district court nevertheless abused its discretion in\ndenying Creditors’ Trust’s motion for reconsideration on these counts.\n Assuming arguendo that Creditors’ Trust’s Rule 59(e) motion was timely\nfiled, 14 we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. As we\nexplain more fully below, the proposed fourth amended complaint attached to\nthe motion abandons Count 5 and still fails to state a claim on Counts 8 and\n12, so Creditors’ Trust has not demonstrated that the district court made a\n“manifest error of law” in dismissing those claims. See Schiller, 342 F.3d at\n567. And although the fourth amended complaint’s allegations on Count 11\nare likely sufficient, Creditors’ Trust “could, and should” have requested leave\n\n\n\n\n 14 The Licensees argue that the motion for reconsideration was untimely. According\nto the Licensees, the 14-day deadline for filing post-judgment motions in Federal Rule of\nBankruptcy Procedure 9023 governs the motion, not the 28-day deadline in Rule 59. Because\nCreditors’ Trust filed its motion 28 days after judgment was entered, it failed to file within\nthe bankruptcy deadline. Creditors’ Trust responds that the 14-day deadline in Bankruptcy\nRule 9023 “applies solely to the transition of jurisdiction from a bankruptcy court to an Article\nIII court.” Where, as here, a district court has withdrawn the bankruptcy reference,\nCreditors’ Trust argues that the Bankruptcy Rules are a “procedural nullity.” Although it\ndid not state the reasons for its conclusion in its order on the motion for reconsideration, the\ndistrict court agreed with Creditors’ Trust that the motion was not untimely.\n At best, whether the motion for reconsideration was untimely filed is unclear. In In\nre Butler, this court found that Bankruptcy Rule 9023 does not apply to appeals from the\ndistrict court to the court of appeals. Butler v. Merchants Bank & Tr. Co. (In re Butler, Inc.),\n2 F.3d 154, 155 (5th Cir. 1993). Instead, Bankruptcy Rule 8015 “provides the sole mechanism\nfor filing a motion for rehearing” in the district court, and Rule 8015 sets a 10-day deadline\nfor doing so. Id. (quoting Aycock v. Eaton (In re Eichelberger), 943 F.2d 536, 538 (5th Cir.\n1991)); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8015. Thus, if Butler requires the court to construe the motion for\nreconsideration as a motion for rehearing, it was untimely. See id. But this court has not\naddressed which rule—Rule 59, Bankruptcy Rule 8015, or Bankruptcy Rule 9023—governs\nwhen a district court withdraws the bankruptcy reference in an adversary proceeding, and\nwe need not do so today.\n 32\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 33 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nto amend its pleadings on that claim “before the judgment issued.” Id. We will\naddress each of these claims in turn.\n 1. Count 5 – Preferential Transfer\n Creditors’ Trust’s proposed fourth amended complaint abandons this\nclaim. The district court accordingly did not abuse its discretion in denying\nthe motion to reconsider as to Count 5.\n 2. Count 8 – Equitable Subordination\n The fourth amended complaint’s allegations on the equitable\nsubordination claim largely duplicate the third amended complaint’s\nallegations on that claim. Significantly, the fourth amended complaint still\nfails to plead into one of the three categories of cases in which we permit\nequitable subordination. See In re Cajun Elec., 119 F.3d at 357. Accordingly,\npermitting Creditors’ Trust to replead Count 8 would have been futile as well.\n 3. Count 11 – Violation of the Texas Securities Act\n The fourth amended complaint states a claim under Section 33(A)(1) of\nthe Texas Securities Act, adequately alleging violations of Sections 7 and 12.\nSee Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 581-33(A)(1), 581-7, 581-12. The fourth amended\ncomplaint remedies the pleading defects in Count 11 in the third amended\ncomplaint: specifically, it alleges that each of the Licensees—identified by\nname in Exhibit 4 to the fourth amended complaint—was an unlicensed seller\nof securities and that Creditors’ Trust seeks to recover damages on behalf of\nthe investors listed by name in Exhibit 4 in the amount of the purchase price\nof their investments. See Matlock v. Hill, 2016 WL 3659988, at *5 (Tex. App.—\nAmarillo June 30, 2016, no pet.) (“[Seller’s] lack of a license coupled with his\nselling of . . . a security in the guise of a life settlement evinced a violation of\nart. 581-12(A) of the [Texas Securities Act].”).\n Nonetheless, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion\nin denying Creditors’ Trust motion for reconsideration on this claim. Because\n 33\n\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 34 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 17-11477\nCreditors’ Trust’s request for leave to amend focused exclusively on expanding\nExhibit 4 to the third amended complaint, the first time Creditors’ Trust\nsought to amend its Count 11 allegations was in its motion for reconsideration\nafter the district court’s judgment of dismissal. See Williams v. McWilliams,\n20 F.3d 465, 465 (5th Cir. 1994) (finding no abuse of discretion in denial of\nleave to amend when plaintiff first requested leave in a motion to reconsider\nafter final judgment). And that motion did not point to any “newly discovered\nevidence,” nor did it explain why the district court should consider Creditors’\nTrust’s “arguments which could, and should, have been made before the\njudgment issued.” See Schiller, 342 F.3d at 567; Briddle v. Scott, 63 F.3d 364,\n379 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[W]e have consistently upheld the denial of leave to\namend where the party seeking to amend has not clearly established that he\ncould not reasonably have raised the new matter prior to the trial court’s\nmerits ruling.”). The district court’s decision on this claim was reasonable.\n 4. Count 12 – Breach of Fiduciary Duty\n On Count 12, the fourth amended complaint does not remedy the third\namended complaint’s failure to allege facts regarding the nature of the\nrelationship between any Licensee and any investor. Creditors’ Trust still does\nnot plead the type of information required under Romano. See 834 F.2d at 530.\nAs a result, the fourth amended complaint does not adequately allege that any\nLicensee breached a fiduciary duty. The district court therefore properly\ndenied Creditors’ Trust’s motion for reconsideration as to Count 12.\n III.\n We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of dismissal as to Counts 5, 8,\n11, and 12. However, we REVERSE the dismissal of Counts 1–4, 6, 9, and 10\nand REMAND them for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\n\n\n\n\n 34\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: In the MATTER OF: LIFE PARTNERS HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, Debtor. Life Partners Creditors' Trust ; Alan M. Jacobs, as Trustee for Life Partners Creditors' Trust, Appellants, v. Fred A. Cowley; Gallagher Financial Group; Edward G. Burford Corporation; Faye Bagby; Ella Oliver, Doing Business as Investingmakesmesick.com; Wealthstone Financial ; Falco Group, L.L.C.; Mark McKay; Kainos Asset Management, L.L.C. ; Life Settlement Exchange, L.L.C., Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-31\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nCase: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n FILED\\n No. 17-11477 May 31, 2019\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\n Clerk\\nIn the Matter of: LIFE PARTNERS HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED\\n\\n Debtor.\\n----------------------------------\\n\\nLIFE PARTNERS CREDITORS' TRUST; ALAN M. JACOBS, As Trustee for\\nLife Partners Creditors' Trust,\\n\\n Appellants,\\n\\nv.\\n\\nFRED A. COWLEY; GALLAGHER FINANCIAL GROUP; EDWARD G.\\nBURFORD CORPORATION; FAYE BAGBY; ELLA OLIVER, doing business\\nas Investingmakesmesick.com; WEALTHSTONE FINANCIAL; FALCO\\nGROUP, L.L.C.; MARK MCKAY; KAINOS ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.;\\nLIFE SETTLEMENT EXCHANGE, L.L.C.,\\n\\n Appellees.\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Texas\\n\\n\\nBefore ELROD, HIGGINSON, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.\\nJENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:\\n This case arises out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcies of three related\\nentities: Life Partners Holdings, Inc.; Life Partners, Inc. (LPI); and LPI\\nFinancial Services (collectively, the “LP Entities”). The LP Entities operated\\nan investment business focused on the sale of interests in life insurance\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\npolicies, through which they defrauded investors and violated securities laws.\\nSee Moran v. Pardo, No. 4:15-cv-00905, Dkt. No. 359 (N.D. Tex. June 12, 2017);\\nsee also SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 854 F.3d 765, 789 (5th Cir. 2017).\\nThe LP Entities used a multi-level marketing structure to sell their life\\ninsurance investments, contracting with individuals and entities they called\\n“Licensees” to refer potential investors in exchange for sales commissions. The\\nbankruptcy trustee filed five adversary proceedings 1 against various groups of\\nthese Licensees, asserting claims under the Bankruptcy Code and on behalf of\\nindividual investors. Life Partners Creditors’ Trust (Creditors’ Trust)—an\\nentity created by the Chapter 11 plan—was later substituted as plaintiff in\\nthese proceedings.\\n The district court granted the Licensees’ motions to dismiss all of\\nCreditors’ Trust’s claims and declined to allow repleading. The district court\\nalso denied Creditors’ Trust’s motion for reconsideration. We AFFIRM in part\\nand REVERSE and REMAND in part.\\n I.\\n A.\\n In 1991, Brian Pardo founded LPI for the purpose of selling “viaticals”—\\ninvestments in life insurance policies that the insureds had sold to third\\nparties. 2 LPI’s parent company, Life Partners Holdings, and a related entity,\\nLPI Financial Services, were also engaged in this business. The LP Entities\\n\\n\\n 1This appeal is from the district court’s judgment in one of the five adversary\\nproceedings. The other four cases remain pending before our panel: Nos. 17-11480, 17-11488,\\n18-10051, and 18-10056.\\n\\n 2 The facts in this section are taken from Creditors’ Trust’s third amended complaint—\\nthe live pleading at the time of dismissal—because at the motion to dismiss stage, we “must\\naccept as true all of the allegations contained in [the] complaint.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.\\n662, 678 (2009); see also U.S. ex rel. Spicer v. Westbrook, 751 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014)\\n(“[W]e accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and interpret the complaint in the\\nlight most favorable to the plaintiff[.]”).\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nused a multi-level marketing structure to promote their investment offerings\\nto investors. First, the LP Entities contracted with “Master Licensees” to\\n(1) refer potential investors to the LP Entities and (2) recruit additional\\nlicensees. The licensees recruited by Master Licensees—called “Referring\\nLicensees”—would in turn enter into two contracts: one with the LP Entities\\nto refer potential investors, and another with the Master Licensee to facilitate\\ntheir sharing of the commissions received from the LP Entities’ sales. The LP\\nEntities produced offering materials for both types of Licensees to distribute to\\npotential investors.\\n Through their Licensees, the LP Entities sold life insurance policies in\\nshares referred to as “fractional interests.” Under their investment contracts\\nwith the LP Entities, the investors funded an escrow account with sufficient\\nfunds to keep the policies in effect during the life expectancies of the insureds\\nas estimated by the LP Entities on their offering materials. If the insureds\\nsurvived beyond the LP Entities’ estimate, the investors also agreed to\\ncontribute additional funds for premiums until the policies reached maturity.\\n Initially, the LP Entities focused on policies in which the insureds had\\nbeen diagnosed with AIDS because the disease shortened the insureds’ life\\nexpectancies in comparison to the actuarial life expectancies used by insurance\\ncompanies. However, shortly after the LP Entities entered the viaticals\\nmarket, medical advances significantly increased life expectancies for AIDS\\npatients. As a result, by 2004, the LP Entities had pivoted their business\\nmodel to focus on elderly insureds who were terminally ill—individuals whose\\nlife expectancies would presumably also be shorter than the actuarial\\nestimates. The LP Entities hired Dr. Donald Cassidy to identify appropriate\\ninsureds and estimate their life expectancies.\\n However, it soon became apparent that Dr. Cassidy did not have the\\nability to perform either task with any accuracy. Of the 302 policies that the\\n 3\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nLP Entities originated between 2004 and 2007, Dr. Cassidy predicted that 157\\nwould mature by the end of 2007. Only seven matured during that time.\\nUndeterred, the LP Entities continued to use the inaccurate life expectancies\\nto set the purchase price of the fractional interests, which resulted in the LP\\nEntities overcharging investors. In addition, the offering materials distributed\\nby the Licensees continued to represent that the insureds had short life\\nexpectancies when their life expectancies were likely no shorter than the\\nactuarial estimates.\\n According to Creditors’ Trust, the LP Entities’ offering materials also\\ncontained numerous other misrepresentations regarding the life insurance\\nindustry and the LP Entities’ investment offerings. Most of these\\nmisrepresentations were related to Dr. Cassidy’s flawed life expectancy\\nestimates, which the LP Entities used to support their claims that the\\nfractional interests were sound investments with a “superior yield potential,”\\nthat the policies would mature relatively quickly, that the investments were\\nlow-risk even if the LP Entities’ life expectancy predictions were incorrect, that\\nthe LP Entities’ prices were appropriate, and that the LP Entities had a\\npositive track record with past life insurance investments. These\\nmisrepresentations form the basis of several of Creditors’ Trust’s claims\\nagainst the Licensees.\\n Over a twelve-year period, the LP Entities raised more than $1.8 billion\\nfrom the sale of more than 100,000 fractional interests to investors. Even when\\ninvestors began expressing doubts because policy maturities were long overdue\\nand media coverage suggested Dr. Cassidy’s predictions were inaccurate,\\nPardo and other LP Entities insiders continued to represent that Dr. Cassidy’s\\npredictions were accurate and that the policies would mature imminently. The\\nLicensees disseminated these representations to the investors.\\n\\n\\n 4\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n Throughout this time, the Licensees received commissions and fees\\nunder their contracts with the LP Entities. Between 2008 and 2015, these\\ncommissions and fees totaled more than $27.6 million. While investors knew\\nthat a portion of their investment funds would be used to pay fees, they were\\nnot given specifics as to how that money was distributed. On average, the\\nLicensees received 12% of the money an investor provided in exchange for a\\nfractional interest, which was well above the industry standard for a\\ncommission in a securities transaction.\\n Due to the large commissions paid to the Licensees—as well as large\\ndistributions made to Pardo and other LP Entities executives—Creditors’\\nTrust alleges that the LP Entities were insolvent for much of their existence\\nprior to filing for bankruptcy. Because the life settlements were bad\\ninvestments, each new purchase of a fractional interest created a liability to\\nthe investor. And because the LP Entities were depleting all their resources\\non commissions and distributions, they did not have sufficient funds to cover\\nthose liabilities. Instead, the LP Entities—through the Licensees—continued\\nto recruit new investors to keep the business funded. Eventually, however, the\\nLP Entities no longer had enough capital to conduct their business operations\\nor continue maintaining the policies that had not yet matured.\\n As the fraudulent practices of the LP Entities came to light through\\nmedia coverage, investors began to file class action lawsuits against the\\ncompanies. See, e.g., Turnbow v. Life Partners, Inc., 2013 WL 3479884, at *1–\\n2 (N.D. Tex. July 9, 2013). In addition, the SEC began investigating the LP\\nEntities. The SEC filed suit based on its findings, and the Western District of\\nTexas found that Pardo had “knowingly—or at least recklessly—violated\\nsecurities laws.” SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 3d 615, 619\\nn.1 (W.D. Tex. 2014), vacated in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 854\\nF.3d at 789.\\n 5\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n B.\\n On January 20, 2015, Life Partners Holdings filed for bankruptcy\\nprotection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Chapter 11 trustee\\nfiled bankruptcy petitions on behalf of the LP subsidiaries, LPI and LPI\\nFinancial Services, on May 19, 2015.\\n The Chapter 11 trustee then filed a series of adversary proceedings on\\nbehalf of the bankruptcy estates. One of the proceedings targeted Pardo and\\nother LP Entities executives and insiders. See Moran, No. 4:15-CV-905, Dkt.\\nNo. 16 (amended complaint). The district court assigned to that case withdrew\\nthe bankruptcy reference and denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, some\\nof which raised arguments similar to those raised by the Licensees here. Id.\\nDkt. Nos. 5, 192. The case proceeded to trial, where a civil jury found that\\nPardo was liable for fraud and that Pardo and other LP insiders were unjustly\\nenriched. See id. Dkt. No. 359 (jury verdict). The district court’s final\\njudgment awarded the LP Entities’ bankruptcy estates and the plaintiff-\\ninvestors in the case more than $40 million in damages. Id. Dkt. No. 440 (final\\njudgment).\\n The five related adversary proceedings before this panel target the LP\\nEntities’ Licensees. The Chapter 11 trustee filed the original complaint in this\\nadversary proceeding in October 2015. The Chapter 11 trustee amended the\\ncomplaint twice before the bankruptcy judge abated all adversary proceedings\\npending confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan. The plan created Creditors’\\nTrust and assigned it two types of claims: (1) claims for liabilities owed to the\\nLP Entities’ bankruptcy estates (Estate Claims), which the Chapter 11 trustee\\nhad previously asserted in the adversary proceedings; and (2) claims\\npreviously held by individual LP Entities investors (Investor Claims), which\\nCreditors’ Trust asserted for the first time in the third amended complaint.\\n\\n\\n 6\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n After the Chapter 11 plan was confirmed, the bankruptcy judge lifted the\\nabatement and proceeded to consider the adversary proceedings, including this\\none. Creditors’ Trust then filed its third amended complaint, asserting the\\nfollowing claims:\\n (A) Estate Claims\\n • Count 1: Actual fraudulent transfer under Texas Business &\\n Commerce Code § 24.005(a)(1) through 11 U.S.C. § 544 (against\\n all Licensees listed on Exhibit 4 of the third amended complaint).\\n Exhibit 4 lists “the annual total commissions received by the\\n Defendant Licensees from 2008 through February[] 2015.” Thus,\\n Creditors’ Trust claims that the commissions the Licensees\\n received from the LP Entities are fraudulent transfers that can be\\n avoided under the Bankruptcy Code.\\n • Count 2: Constructive fraudulent transfer under Texas Business\\n & Commerce Code § 24.005(a)(2) through 11 U.S.C. § 544 (against\\n all Licensees listed on Exhibit 4).\\n • Count 3: Actual fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C.\\n § 548(a)(1)(A) (against “Certain Licensees” listed on Exhibit 4).\\n • Count 4: Constructive fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C.\\n § 548(a)(1)(B) (against “Certain Licensees” listed on Exhibit 4). 3\\n • Count 5: Preferences under 11 U.S.C. § 547 (against “Certain\\n Licensees” listed on Exhibit 4). Creditors’ Trust claims that the\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 We have explained before that fraudulent transfer claims under the Texas Uniform\\nFraudulent Transfer Act and the Bankruptcy Code differ in material ways. See, e.g., Janvey\\nv. Golf Channel, Inc., 834 F.3d 570, 573 (5th Cir. 2016) (“The Supreme Court of Texas’s\\nanswer interprets the concept of ‘value’ under TUFTA differently than we have understood\\n‘value’ under . . . section 548(c) [of] the Bankruptcy Code.”). To the extent that these\\ndifferences are relevant to our Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) analysis, we address\\nthem below.\\n 7\\n\\fCase: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n commissions received by “Certain Licensees” are also avoidable as\\n preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code.\\n • Count 6: Recovery of avoided transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 550\\n (against all Licensees).\\n • Count 7: Breach of contract (against all Licensees). Creditors’\\n Trust later agreed to voluntarily abandon this claim, and it is not\\n at issue on appeal.\\n • Count 8: Equitable subordination of the Licensees’ claims against\\n the LP Entities’ bankruptcy estates under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c)\\n (against all Licensees).\\n • Count 9: Disallowance of the Licensees’ claims against the LP\\n Entities’ bankruptcy estates under 11 U.S.C. § 502(d) (against all\\n Licensees).\\n (B) Investor Claims\\n • Count 10: Negligent misrepresentation (against “Certain\\n Licensees,” with a reference to Exhibit 5 of the third amended\\n complaint). Exhibit 5 is a “chart detailing the . . . relationship\\n between Licensees and Investors with regard to sales to specific\\n investors.” Creditors’ Trust’s negligent misrepresentation claims\\n appear to be primarily based on the Licensees’ distribution of the\\n LP Entities’ offering materials to investors.\\n • Count 11: Breach of the Texas Securities Act (against “Certain\\n Licensees,” with a reference to Exhibit 5). Creditors’ Trust claims\\n that the fractional interests were “unregistered securities,” and\\n “certain Licensees” were “unlicensed brokers engaged in the sale”\\n of these securities.\\n • Count 12: Breach of fiduciary duty (against “Certain Licensees,”\\n with a reference to Exhibit 5). Creditors’ Trust claims that as\\n 8\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n securities brokers, the Licensees owed the investors a fiduciary\\n duty which they breached by making material\\n misrepresentations. 4\\n Many of the Licensees filed or amended previously filed motions to\\ndismiss the third amended complaint. The district court withdrew the\\nreference in the adversary proceeding and referred the motions to the\\nbankruptcy judge. The bankruptcy judge held two hearings on the motions\\nbefore filing his report and recommendation.\\n The bankruptcy judge recommended dismissal of the fraudulent transfer\\nclaims, the preference claim, the negligent misrepresentation claim, and the\\nbreach of fiduciary duty claim. The judge further recommended that the Texas\\nSecurities Act claim be dismissed in part on limitations grounds, and that the\\nequitable subordination and disallowance claims be dismissed in part as to\\nLicensees who did not file claims in the LP Entities’ bankruptcy cases. 5 As to\\neach claim for which he recommended dismissal, the bankruptcy judge also\\nrecommended that Creditors’ Trust be granted leave to amend the third\\namended complaint.\\n After reviewing the bankruptcy judge’s recommendations, the district\\ncourt issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing all of Creditors’\\nTrust’s claims against the Licensees with prejudice. In contrast to the\\nbankruptcy judge’s recommendation, however, the district court declined to\\npermit Creditors’ Trust to amend its complaint to correct the pleading defects.\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Creditors’ Trust also asserted a constructive trust claim in the third amended\\ncomplaint. However, as Creditors’ Trust acknowledges, a constructive trust is “a practical\\nmechanism to enforce the substantive Counts” in its complaint—a remedy rather than a\\nsubstantive claim. Accordingly, we leave the issue of whether that remedy is appropriate in\\nthis case for the district court to address at a later procedural stage.\\n\\n 5 The bankruptcy judge did not recommend dismissal of the avoidance claim, but this\\nclaim is derivative of Counts 1–5.\\n 9\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nCreditors’ Trust then filed a motion for reconsideration, urging the court to\\ngrant leave to amend the third amended complaint based on an “oral motion”\\nCreditors’ Trust made before the bankruptcy judge. Creditors’ Trust attached\\na fourth amended complaint with significantly longer exhibits which it insisted\\naddressed the pleading issues identified in the district court’s order. The\\ndistrict court denied the motion.\\n II.\\n Creditors’ Trust appeals three determinations by the district court:\\n(1) its grant of the Licensees’ motions to dismiss; (2) its denial of leave to\\namend the third amended complaint; and (3) its denial of the motion for\\nreconsideration.\\n A.\\n We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal\\nRule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. Castro v. Collecto, Inc., 634 F.3d 779,\\n783 (5th Cir. 2011). Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain “a short and\\nplain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]”\\nFed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To satisfy Rule 8(a), “a complaint must contain\\nsufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is\\nplausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell\\nAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A pleaded claim is plausible\\nif the allegations in the complaint “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable\\ninference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.\\n Rule 9(b) imposes a heightened pleading standard in cases where the\\nplaintiff alleges fraud or mistake: particularity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). When the\\nRule 9(b) pleading standard applies, the complaint must contain factual\\nallegations stating the “time, place, and contents of the false representations,\\nas well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what\\n[that person] obtained thereby.” Tuchman v. DSC Commc’ns Corp., 14 F.3d\\n 10\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n1061, 1068 (5th Cir. 1994) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). In other\\nwords, to properly allege fraud under Rule 9(b), the plaintiff must plead the\\nwho, what, when, where, and why as to the fraudulent conduct. See id.\\n The live pleading in this case is the 48-page third amended complaint, to\\nwhich Creditors’ Trust has attached in support nearly 400 pages of exhibits.\\nSee Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (“A written\\ndocument that is attached to a complaint as an exhibit is considered part of the\\ncomplaint and may be considered in a 12(b)(6) dismissal proceeding.”). 6 The\\nthird amended complaint recites a complex set of detailed factual allegations\\nand sets out twelve separate causes of action under which Creditors’ Trust\\ninsists that it is entitled to relief. With respect to each of Creditors’ Trust’s\\nclaims, we evaluate de novo whether the allegations in the third amended\\ncomplaint adequately state a claim.\\n 1. Counts 1 and 3 – Actual Fraudulent Transfer\\n Creditors’ Trust’s first claim relies on the actual fraud provision of the\\nTexas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA):\\n A transfer made . . . by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor,\\n whether the creditor’s claim arose before or within a reasonable\\n time after the transfer was made . . . , if the debtor made the\\n transfer . . . : (1) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any\\n creditor of the debtor[.]\\n\\nTex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.005(a)(1). Thus, the elements of an actual\\nfraudulent transfer under TUFTA are: (1) a creditor; (2) a debtor; (3) the\\ndebtor transferred assets shortly before or after the creditor’s claim arose;\\n(4) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any of the debtor’s creditors.\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 We caution litigants that this rule does not mean they can or should attach lengthy\\nexhibits to their complaints in the hope of making otherwise deficient pleadings sufficient\\nunder Rule 12(b)(6). However, in complex cases such as this one, documents that support a\\nplaintiff’s claims and aggregate relevant information can be helpful attachments.\\n 11\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nNwokedi v. Unlimited Restoration Specialists, Inc., 428 S.W.3d 191, 204–05\\n(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). Creditors’ Trust brings this\\nclaim through 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1). Count 3 relies on the Bankruptcy Code’s\\nactual fraudulent transfer doctrine, set out in 11 U.S.C. § 548:\\n The trustee may avoid any transfer . . . of an interest of the debtor\\n in property . . . that was made or incurred on or within 2 years\\n before the date of the filing of the petition, if the debtor voluntarily\\n or involuntarily—\\n (A) made such transfer . . . with actual intent to hinder,\\n delay, or defraud any entity to which the debtor was or\\n became, on or after the date that such transfer was\\n made . . . , indebted[.]\\n\\n11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A). As noted above, Creditors’ Trust’s theory for its\\nfraudulent transfer claims is that the commissions the LP Entities paid the\\nLicensees are avoidable fraudulent transfers.\\n As an initial matter, Creditors’ Trust argues that although Counts 1 and\\n3 are actual fraudulent transfer claims, the Rule 8(a) pleading standard\\napplies. The bankruptcy judge agreed, relying on Judge Godbey’s opinion in\\nJanvey v. Alguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d 662 (N.D. Tex. 2011). The district court\\napplied Rule 9(b). Consistent with Judge Godbey’s reasoning in Alguire,\\nCreditors’ Trust emphasizes that its actual fraudulent transfer claims do not\\nrequire any allegation that the defendant Licensees engaged in fraud; only the\\nfraudulent conduct of the debtor LP Entities is relevant to Counts 1 and 3.\\nAlguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 676 (holding that there is “no principled reason” to\\napply Rule 9 to TUFTA actual fraudulent transfer claims because “[t]here is\\nno allegation that the [d]efendant committed any act of fraud” (alterations in\\noriginal)).\\n We have not previously addressed the question of whether an actual\\nfraudulent transfer claim is subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading\\nrequirements. See Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 599 (5th Cir. 2011) (“We\\n 12\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nneed not and do not address the issue of whether heightened pleading is\\nrequired.”). And the district courts in this circuit are not in unanimity on this\\nquestion. Compare Guffy v. Brown (In re Brown Med. Ctr., Inc.), 552 B.R. 165,\\n167 (S.D. Tex. 2016) (applying Rule 9(b)), with Alguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 675–\\n76. But we observe that at least three other circuits—the First, Second, and\\nEighth Circuits—have concluded that Rule 9(b) applies. In re Lawson, 791\\nF.3d 214, 217 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2015) (noting that Rule 9 is the appropriate\\npleading standard for an actual fraudulent transfer claim under the Rhode\\nIsland Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act); In re Sharp Int’l Corp., 403 F.3d 43,\\n56 (2d Cir. 2005) (New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act); Stoebner v.\\nOpportunity Fin., LLC, 909 F.3d 219, 225, 226 & n.6 (8th Cir. 2018) (Minnesota\\nUniform Fraudulent Transfer Act); see also Pricaspian Dev. Corp. v. Martucci,\\n759 F. App’x 131, 135–36 (3d Cir. 2019) (New Jersey Uniform Fraudulent\\nTransfer Act); Nw. Nat. Ins. Co. of Milwaukee, Wis. v. Joslyn, 53 F.3d 331, at\\n*1, 4 (6th Cir. 1995) (unpublished) (Ohio’s fraudulent transfer statute);\\nNishibun v. Prepress Sols., Inc., 111 F.3d 138, at *1 (9th Cir. 1997)\\n(unpublished) (California’s fraudulent transfer statute); 5A Charles Alan\\nWright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1297 (4th ed. 2019\\nupdate) (“Claims of fraudulent transfer or fraudulent conveyance are also\\nsubject to the heightened standard of Rule 9(b).”).\\n The Fourth, Seventh, 7 Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have not yet\\naddressed the issue, and the district courts in the Fourth, Tenth, and Eleventh\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 The Seventh Circuit has held that constructive fraudulent transfer claims under the\\nIllinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act are subject to Rule 9(b), Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v.\\nLease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1078–79 (7th Cir. 1997), and district courts in the\\ncircuit have applied this holding to actual fraudulent transfer claims as well. See Desmond\\nv. Taxi Affiliation Servs. LLC, 344 F. Supp. 3d 915, 923–24, 926 (N.D. Ill. 2018).\\n\\n 13\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nCircuits, like ours, are divided. 8 Here, because Creditors’ Trust’s Count 1 and\\n3 allegations are sufficient under either standard, we need not weigh in on this\\nvexing question.\\n First, Creditors’ Trust adequately states a claim under Rule 8(a) and\\nTwombly. The third amended complaint identifies the Licensees—listed by\\nname in Exhibit 4—as the creditors to whom the transfers were made and the\\nLP Entities as the debtor-transferors. The Licensees complain that Creditors’\\nTrust has not specified which LP Entity made the transfers, but in cases\\ninvolving a Ponzi or Ponzi-like scheme, a plaintiff “may establish fraudulent\\nintent by showing that the . . . enterprise operated as a Ponzi scheme” without\\nproving which of the entities involved in the scheme was the transferor.\\nAlguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 672 (citing Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 511, 558\\n(5th Cir. 2006)); see id. at 677. And it can hardly be argued that the third\\namended complaint fails to allege an actual intent to defraud on the part of the\\nLP Entities—the complaint is replete with allegations to this effect, including\\nfacts corresponding directly to the “badges of fraud” listed in the Texas actual\\nfraudulent transfer statute. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.005(b).\\n If Rule 9(b) is the applicable pleading standard, the Count 1 and 3\\nallegations satisfy it as well. Exhibit 4 sets out the details of the allegedly\\nfraudulent transfers—including the transferor, transferees, amounts, and\\ntime period—and the complaint itself contains pages of allegations detailing\\nthe underlying fraudulent scheme. See Alguire, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 677 (finding\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Fourth Circuit: Compare Hongda Chem USA, LLC v. Shangyu Sunfit Chem. Co.,\\n2016 WL 4703725, at *5 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2016) (applying Rule 9(b)), with Bell v. Disner,\\n2014 WL 6978690, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 9, 2014) (applying Rule 8). Tenth Circuit: Compare\\nWagner v. Galbreth, 500 B.R. 42, 53 (D.N.M. 2013) (applying Rule 9(b)), with Touchstone\\nGrp., LLC v. Rink, 913 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1083 (D. Colo. 2012) (applying Rule 8). Eleventh\\nCircuit: Compare Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 2007 WL 2872463, at *6 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 26, 2007)\\n(applying Rule 9(b)), with Pearlman v. Alexis, 2009 WL 3161830, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25,\\n2009) (applying Rule 8).\\n 14\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nfraudulent transfer allegations sufficient under Rule 9(b) where they included\\nthe time period in which the transfers occurred; the details of the underlying\\nPonzi scheme, including that the defendants received compensation from the\\nPonzi scheme “in the form of funds derived from unsuspecting investors[]”; and\\nthe total amount of compensation each defendant received).\\n With respect to the timing of the transfers, the Licensees have not\\ndemonstrated that any transfers are barred by TUFTA’s four-year statute of\\nlimitations for the reasons explained in the bankruptcy judge’s report and\\nrecommendation. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.010(a)(1). Under the\\nBankruptcy Code, however, actual fraudulent transfer claims are barred as to\\ntransfers made more than two years before the petition date. 11 U.S.C.\\n§ 548(a)(1). Exhibit 4 lists transfers occurring as far back as 2008, some of\\nwhich are plainly untimely under this statute of repose. Accordingly, we affirm\\nthe district court’s dismissal of Count 3 only as to transfers made by Life\\nPartners Holdings before January 20, 2013, and transfers made by LPI and\\nLPI Financial Services before May 19, 2013. Because we conclude that Count\\n1 and the remainder of Count 3 are adequately pleaded, we hold that the\\ndistrict court erred in dismissing these claims.\\n 2. Counts 2 and 4 – Constructive Fraudulent Transfer\\n TUFTA’s constructive fraudulent transfer provision, which Creditors’\\nTrust relies on in Count 2 of the third amended complaint, stipulates:\\n A transfer made . . . by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor,\\n whether the creditor’s claim arose before or within a reasonable\\n time after the transfer was made . . . , if the debtor made the\\n transfer . . . : (2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value\\n in exchange for the transfer . . . , and the debtor:\\n (A) was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a\\n transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor\\n were unreasonably small in relation to the business or\\n transaction; or\\n\\n 15\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n (B) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have\\n believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the\\n debtor’s ability to pay as they became due.\\n\\nTex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.005(a)(2). Creditors’ Trust also brings this claim\\nthrough 11 U.S.C. § 544. The elements of a constructive fraudulent transfer\\nunder Texas law are the same as actual fraudulent transfer except instead of\\npleading fraudulent intent, the plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating: (1) a\\nlack of reasonably equivalent value for the transfer; and (2) the transferor was\\n“financially vulnerable” or insolvent at the time of the transaction. See Janvey\\nv. Golf Channel, Inc., 487 S.W.3d 560, 562, 566 & n.21 (Tex. 2016); Tex. Bus.\\n& Com. Code § 24.006(a). Creditors’ Trust’s Bankruptcy Code constructive\\nfraudulent transfer claim, labeled Count 4, requires the following:\\n The trustee may avoid any transfer . . . of an interest of the debtor\\n in property . . . that was made or incurred on or within 2 years\\n before the date of the filing of the petition, if the debtor voluntarily\\n or involuntarily—\\n (B)(i) received less than a reasonably equivalent value in\\n exchange for such transfer . . . ; and\\n (ii)(I) was insolvent on the date that such transfer was\\n made . . . , or became insolvent as a result of such\\n transfer . . . [.]\\n11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B).\\n As with actual fraudulent transfer claims, we have not addressed the\\nquestion of whether the Rule 9(b) pleading standard applies to constructive\\nfraudulent transfer claims. District courts in the Fifth Circuit have suggested\\nthat constructive fraudulent transfer claims are only subject to Rule 8(a). See,\\ne.g., Janvey v. Univ. of Miami, 2013 WL 12361381, at *4–5 (N.D. Tex. July 11,\\n2013); E. Poultry Distribs., Inc. v. Yarto Puez, 2001 WL 34664163, at *2 (N.D.\\nTex. Dec. 3, 2001). In Eastern Poultry, Judge Lynn emphasized that\\nconstructive fraudulent transfer allows for “fraudulent transfer without intent\\n\\n\\n 16\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nto defraud,” citing to the Southern District of New York’s reasoning that “fraud\\nhas nothing to do with [a] constructive fraudulent transfer claim” because\\n“[t]he transaction is based on the transferor’s financial condition and the\\nsufficiency of the consideration provided by the transferee.” E. Poultry, 2001\\nWL 34664163, at *2; In re White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp., 222 B.R.\\n417, 428–29 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).\\n While this reasoning has persuasive value, two of our sister circuits have\\nheld that constructive fraudulent transfer claims are subject to Rule 9(b). Gen.\\nElec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1078–79 (7th Cir.\\n1997) (Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act); Stoebner, 909 F.3d at 225,\\n226 & n.6 (Minnesota Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act). No other circuits\\nappear to have directly addressed the issue. But see In re Sharp, 403 F.3d at\\n56 (applying Rule 9(b) only to actual fraudulent transfer claims under the New\\nYork Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act). Because we conclude that the\\nCount 2 and 4 allegations satisfy both Rule 8(a) and Rule 9(b), we do not need\\nto reach this question.\\n Creditors’ Trust’s third amended complaint satisfies Rule 8(a), largely\\nfor the same reasons that the Count 1 and 3 allegations are sufficient. On the\\nissue of insolvency, Creditors’ Trust has plausibly alleged that the LP Entities\\nwere insolvent for much of their existence, explaining that each new purchase\\nof a fractional interest created a liability to the investor that the LP Entities\\nhad insufficient funds to cover because they were paying commissions to the\\nLicensees and distributions to insiders. See Alguire, 647 F.3d at 597 (“[A] Ponzi\\nscheme ‘is, as a matter of law, insolvent from its inception.’” (quoting Warfield,\\n436 F.3d at 558)). In addition, Creditors’ Trust has adequately alleged a lack\\nof reasonably equivalent value because providing services in furtherance of a\\nfraudulent Ponzi-like scheme, as Creditors’ Trust alleges the Licensees did,\\n\\n\\n 17\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\ndoes not confer reasonably equivalent value as a matter of law. See Warfield,\\n436 F.3d at 560.\\n Even if Counts 2 and 4 are subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading\\nstandard, they are alleged with sufficient particularity to satisfy that standard.\\nSee Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 128 F.3d at 1080 (holding that constructive\\nfraudulent transfer pleadings complied with Rule 9(b) where the complaint\\nalleged that the transferor did not receive reasonably equivalent value and\\nthat the transfers “rendered [the transferor] insolvent and effectively\\nprecluded” it from paying its debts (internal quotation marks and citation\\nomitted)); Janvey v. Suarez, 978 F. Supp. 2d 685, 696, 701 (N.D. Tex. 2013)\\n(applying Alguire’s reasoning regarding Rule 9(b) equally to a TUFTA\\nconstructive fraudulent transfer claim).\\n Notwithstanding the above, the Licensees contend that Counts 2 and 4\\nare barred at least in part by the relevant statutes of repose. Compare Tex.\\nBus. & Com. Code § 24.010(a)(2) (TUFTA’s four-year state of repose), with 11\\nU.S.C. § 548(a)(1) (Bankruptcy Code’s two-year statute of repose). We agree\\nfor the reasons explained by the bankruptcy judge. We therefore dismiss\\nCount 2 only as to transfers from Life Partners Holdings that occurred before\\nJanuary 20, 2011, and transfers from LPI and LPI Financial Services that\\noccurred before May 19, 2011. We also dismiss Count 4 only as to transfers\\nfrom Life Partners Holdings that occurred before January 20, 2013, and\\ntransfers from LPI and LPI Financial Services that occurred before May 19,\\n2013. Because the remainder of Counts 2 and 4 are adequately pleaded under\\nRule 8(a), the district court erred in dismissing these claims in their entirety.\\n 3. Count 5 – Preferential Transfer\\n The elements of a Bankruptcy Code preference claim are as follows:\\n [T]he trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in\\n property—\\n\\n 18\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n (1) to or for the benefit of a creditor;\\n (2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor\\n before such transfer was made;\\n (3) made while the debtor was insolvent;\\n (4) made—\\n (A) on or within 90 days before the date of the filing of\\n the petition . . . ; and\\n (5) that enables such creditor to receive more than such\\n creditor would receive if—\\n (A) the case were a case under chapter 7 of this title;\\n (B) the transfer had not been made; and\\n (C) such creditor received payment of such debt to the\\n extent provided by the provisions of this title.\\n\\n11 U.S.C. § 547(b). In the third amended complaint, Creditors’ Trust clarifies\\nthat its preference claim applies only to transfers that were made within 90\\ndays before each of the LP Entities’ bankruptcy petitions were filed.\\n The parties do not dispute that Rule 8(a) applies to Count 5. The third\\namended complaint’s allegations satisfy this standard as to elements 1–4\\nabove. The complaint alleges that the LP Entities transferred commissions to\\nthe Licensees (1) for the Licensees’ benefit; (2) pursuant to a contractual\\nobligation that the LP Entities owed to the Licensees; (3) while the LP Entities\\nwere insolvent, as explained in supra Section II.A.2.; and (4) within 90 days\\nbefore each LP Entity filed its bankruptcy petition. However, the third\\namended complaint does not plead any facts relevant to element 5: it does not\\nexplain what the Licensees would have received in a chapter 7 case, nor does\\nit state whether the commissions were greater than that amount. Accordingly,\\nbecause Count 5 does not contain allegations on this essential element of a\\npreferential transfer, we hold that the district court properly dismissed this\\nclaim as inadequately pleaded. See Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d\\n228, 257 (5th Cir. 2009) (explaining that Twombly requires allegations on\\n“each element of a claim”).\\n\\n\\n 19\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n 4. Counts 6 and 9 – Avoidance and Disallowance\\n As the Licensees acknowledge, Creditors’ Trust’s avoidance and\\ndisallowance claims are remedial. Under the Bankruptcy Code, if Creditors’\\nTrust demonstrates that the transfers to the Licensees were fraudulent or\\npreferential, it is entitled to avoid these transfers and recover them on behalf\\nof the bankruptcy estates. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 548(a)(1), 550(a). In\\naddition, the Licensees’ claims against the bankruptcy estates will be\\ndisallowed in whole or in part. See 11 U.S.C. § 502(d). Thus, these two claims\\nare derivative of and dependent on Creditors’ Trust’s Count 1–5 allegations.\\nBecause Counts 1–4 of the third amended complaint are adequately pleaded,\\nwe hold that the district court erred in dismissing derivative Counts 6 and 9.\\n 5. Count 8 – Equitable Subordination\\n Under 11 U.S.C. § 510, “the court may . . . under principles of equitable\\nsubordination, subordinate for purposes of distribution all or part of an allowed\\nclaim to all or part of another allowed claim” in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 510(c).\\nIn the Fifth Circuit, equitable subordination is appropriate when (1) the\\nclaimant engaged in inequitable conduct; (2) the misconduct resulted in harm\\nto the debtor’s other creditors or conferred an unfair advantage on the\\nclaimant; and (3) equitable subordination is not inconsistent with the\\nBankruptcy Code. Wooley v. Faulkner (In re SI Restructuring, Inc.), 532 F.3d\\n355, 360 (5th Cir. 2008). “[A] claim should be subordinated only to the extent\\nnecessary to offset the harm which the . . . creditors have suffered as a result\\nof the inequitable conduct.” Id. at 360–61. This court typically only applies\\nequitable subordination in three types of cases: (1) when a fiduciary of the\\ndebtor misuses the relationship to the disadvantage of other creditors;\\n(2) when a third party controls the debtor to the disadvantage of other\\ncreditors; and (3) when a third party actually defrauds other creditors. Official\\n\\n\\n 20\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nComm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Cajun Elec. Power Coop., Inc. (In re Cajun\\nElec. Power Coop., Inc.), 119 F.3d 349, 357 (5th Cir. 1997).\\n The Licensees insist that the equitable subordination claim is subject to\\nRule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard because it is “fraud-based.” We\\ndisagree for the reason set out by the bankruptcy judge:\\n“[e]quitable subordination claims, by their nature, do not require the\\nestablishment of fraud by the defendant.” Equitable subordination requires\\nonly “inequitable conduct” on the part of the claimant, so Creditors’ Trust need\\nonly satisfy Rule 8(a) to adequately plead this claim. See In re SI\\nRestructuring, 532 F.3d at 360.\\n While the third amended complaint does contain allegations to address\\nthe elements of equitable subordination, the allegations are largely conclusory.\\nFor example, the third amended complaint does not allege facts regarding the\\nextent of the harm that any individual investor suffered, stating only that the\\nLicensees’ conduct resulted in “the transfer of substantial value” to the\\nLicensees “to the direct detriment” of the investors. The exhibits attached to\\nthe third amended complaint do not appear to provide this information either.\\nThese types of conclusory recitations fail to state a claim under Rule 8(a). See\\nTwombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause\\nof action will not do[.]”). Moreover, the third amended complaint does not\\nallege that the Licensees were fiduciaries of the debtor LP Entities or that the\\nLicensees controlled the LP Entities, and Creditors’ Trust concedes that it has\\nnot alleged that the Licensees actually defrauded the investors. Thus, the\\nthird amended complaint fails to state an equitable subordination claim, and\\nthe district court properly dismissed Count 8.\\n 6. Count 10 – Negligent Misrepresentation\\n Under Texas law, the elements of negligent misrepresentation are:\\n\\n\\n 21\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n (1) the representation is made by a defendant in the course of his\\n business, or in a transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest;\\n (2) the defendant supplies “false information” for the guidance of\\n others in their business; (3) the defendant did not exercise\\n reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the\\n information; and (4) the plaintiff suffers pecuniary loss by\\n justifiably relying on the representation.\\n\\nFed. Land Bank Ass’n of Tyler v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1991).\\n We must first decide which pleading standard applies to Creditors’\\nTrust’s negligent misrepresentation claim. “Although Rule 9(b) by its terms\\ndoes not apply to negligent misrepresentation claims, this court has applied\\nthe heightened pleading requirements when the parties have not urged a\\nseparate focus on the negligent misrepresentation claims.” Benchmark Elecs.,\\nInc. v. J.M. Huber Corp., 343 F.3d 719, 723 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Williams v.\\nWMX Techs., Inc., 112 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1997)). Because Creditors’ Trust\\nhas identified a separate focus on its negligent misrepresentation claims, Rule\\n9(b) does not apply here. In Williams, the fraud and negligent\\nmisrepresentation claims relied on the same misrepresentations, 112 F.2d at\\n177, and in Benchmark, they were “based on the same set of alleged facts.” 343\\nF.3d at 723. Here, however, Creditors’ Trust’s negligent misrepresentation\\nclaim relies on a different set of misrepresentations—the offering materials—\\nthan its fraudulent transfer claims, which rely on the commissions paid to the\\nLicensees as the operative fraudulent conduct. The two claims also rely on\\ndifferent sets of underlying facts: for the fraudulent transfer claims, the\\nrelevant facts are the payment of commissions to the Licensees; for the\\nnegligent misrepresentation claim, the relevant facts are the distribution of\\nthe LP offering materials to investors. Count 10 is thus subject only to Rule\\n8(a). See Am. Realty Tr., Inc. v. Hamilton Lane Advisors, Inc., 115 F. App’x\\n662, 668 & n.30 (5th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing Williams and Benchmark and\\n\\n\\n 22\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 23 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nfinding that “plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation claims are only subject to\\nthe liberal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)”).\\n The negligent misrepresentation allegations in the third amended\\ncomplaint satisfy Rule 8(a). Specifically, the complaint explains that (1) the\\nLicensees distributed the offering materials in the course of their employment\\nand had a pecuniary interest through their commissions; (2) the offering\\nmaterials contained an array of false statements and were provided to the\\ninvestors; (3) the Licensees distributed the offering materials when they knew\\nor should have known that the fractional interests were bad investments; and\\n(4) the investors justifiably relied by purchasing fractional interests and were\\nharmed “in the minimum amount of the price paid for their investment[s].” We\\ntherefore hold that the district court erred in dismissing Count 10 as\\ninadequately pleaded. 9\\n 7. Count 11 – Violation of the Texas Securities Act\\n The Texas Securities Act provides that:\\n A person who offers or sells a security in violation of Section 7, 9 .\\n . . , 12, [or] 23C . . . of this Act is liable to the person buying the\\n security from him, who may sue either at law or in equity for\\n rescission or for damages if the buyer no longer owns the security.\\n\\nTex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 581-33(A)(1). Section 7 of the Act prohibits the sale of\\nunregistered securities, id. art. 581-7, and Section 12 sets out requirements for\\nthe registration of a seller of securities, id. art. 581-12. Section 9 of the Act\\nrequires the disclosure of material facts in an offer of sale for a security. Id.\\nart. 581-9(C). Finally, Section 23(C) proscribes false, misleading, or deceptive\\noffers to sell that are prohibited by a cease publication order. Id. art. 581-\\n23(C).\\n\\n\\n\\n We agree with the bankruptcy judge’s conclusion that this claim is not barred by\\n 9\\n\\nlimitations for the reasons stated in the bankruptcy judge’s report and recommendation.\\n 23\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 24 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n The parties agree that Rule 8(a) applies to Count 11. The allegations on\\nthis count do not adequately state a claim. The third amended complaint does\\nnot clearly allege which sections of the Texas Securities Act the Licensees\\nviolated. Presumably, because the third amended complaint states that the\\nLicensees were “unlicensed brokers engaged in the sale of unregistered\\nsecurities,” Creditors’ Trust focuses on Sections 7 and 12. However, because\\nthe third amended complaint does not explain which Licensees are the “certain\\nLicensees” who violated the Act, it fails to give those defendants fair notice of\\nthe claim against them. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In addition, as the\\ndistrict court noted, neither the third amended complaint nor Exhibit 5\\ncontains information indicating which investors still own fractional interests,\\nso it is impossible to determine whether the remedy sought by each investor is\\nrescission or damages. For these reasons, the district court properly dismissed\\nCreditors’ Trust’s Texas Securities Act claim.\\n 8. Count 12 – Breach of Fiduciary Duty\\n The parties disagree as to whether Rule 9(b) applies to this claim. We\\nhave noted in an unpublished case that Rule 9(b) governs breach of fiduciary\\nduty claims that are “predicated on fraud.” Brown v. Bilek, 401 F. App’x 889,\\n893 (5th Cir. 2010); see also In re Elec. Data Sys. Corp. ERISA Litig., 305 F.\\nSupp. 2d 658, 672 (E.D. Tex. 2004) (“Only a breach of fiduciary duty claim\\nwhich includes a fraud claim implicates Rule 9(b).”). But Creditors’ Trust has\\nnot pleaded a breach of fiduciary duty claim that is “predicated on fraud.”\\nInstead, the third amended complaint alleges that the Licensees disseminated\\nthe misrepresentations in the offering materials negligently. Thus, the breach\\nof fiduciary duty claim does not rely on fraudulent conduct by the Licensees,\\nbut instead relies on the Licensees’ failure to exercise reasonable care. Count\\n12 is therefore not subject to Rule 9(b).\\n\\n\\n 24\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 25 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n A Texas law claim for breach of fiduciary duty requires the plaintiff to\\nplead the following elements: “(1) the existence of a fiduciary duty, (2) breach\\nof the duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages.” First United Pentecostal Church\\nof Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214, 220 (Tex. 2017). Texas courts have\\nfound that financial advisors owe their clients a fiduciary duty. E.g., W.\\nReserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. Graben, 233 S.W.3d 360, 374 (Tex. App.—\\nFort Worth 2007, no pet.). And this court has held that brokers owe their\\ncustomers a fiduciary duty. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,\\n834 F.2d 523, 530 (5th Cir. 1987). However, as we explained in Romano, “the\\nnature of the fiduciary duty owed will vary, depending on the relationship\\nbetween the broker and the investor.” Id. Thus, because the duty owed is\\ncontingent on the nature of the fiduciary relationship, the plaintiff must plead\\nsome facts as to the nature of the relationship to state a plausible claim that\\nthat a fiduciary duty has been breached. See id. (“[T]he duty to disclose\\ninformation about risk will vary depending on the circumstances and the\\nnature of the relationship[.]” (quoting Clayton Brokerage Co. v. Commodity\\nFutures Trading Comm’n, 794 F.2d 573, 582 (11th Cir. 1986))).\\n The third amended complaint does not contain any allegations regarding\\nthe relationship between any specific Licensee and any specific investor.\\nImportantly, it does not state facts regarding “the degree of trust” placed in the\\nLicensee or “the intelligence and personality” of the investor, so the nature of\\nthe fiduciary duty owed cannot be ascertained from the pleadings. See id. As\\na result, the third amended complaint does not provide sufficient facts to allege\\nthat any fiduciary duty has been breached by any individual Licensee. Finally,\\nthe third amended complaint also limits Count 12 to “certain Licensees,” but\\ndoes not explain which Licensees fall within that group. The district court\\ntherefore properly dismissed Creditors’ Trust’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.\\n\\n\\n 25\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 26 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n For the reasons described, we hold that the district court erred in\\ndismissing Counts 1–4, 6, 9, and 10 as inadequately pleaded. 10 However, we\\naffirm the district court’s dismissal of Counts 5, 8, 11, and 12 under Rule\\n12(b)(6).\\n B.\\n Even if a plaintiff’s pleadings are deficient under Rule 12(b)(6), a district\\ncourt should “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R.\\nCiv. P. 15(a)(2). In fact, “Rule 15(a) ‘evinces a bias in favor of granting leave\\nto amend.’” Thomas v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 832 F.3d 586, 590 (5th Cir. 2016)\\n(quoting Hermann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 302 F.3d 552, 566 (5th\\nCir. 2002)). “[P]ermissible reasons for denying a motion for leave to amend\\ninclude ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,\\nrepeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue\\nprejudice to the opposing party . . . , futility of amendment, etc.’” Id. at 591\\n(quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Leave to amend need not\\nbe granted when the amended pleading “would not withstand a motion to\\ndismiss for failure to state a claim.” Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 360 n.7 (5th\\nCir. 2001). We review the denial of a motion for leave to amend for an abuse\\nof discretion. Thomas, 832 F.3d at 590. However, where the denial of leave to\\namend was based solely on futility, we apply a de novo standard of review\\ninstead. Id.\\n In its order of dismissal, the district court emphasized that Creditors’\\nTrust had not sought leave to amend before the district court issued its final\\njudgment. Creditors’ Trust contends that it did indeed request leave to amend.\\nIt explains the relevant procedural context as follows: At the first hearing\\nbefore the bankruptcy judge, the Licensees “repeatedly correlated the[ir Rule\\n\\n\\n 10 On remand, Creditors’ Trust may still wish to replead these claims for clarity.\\n 26\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 27 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n12(b)(6)] challenges with the manner in which the Creditors’ Trust had utilized\\n‘Exhibit 4’ to the Third Amended Complaint to aggregate pertinent\\ninformation[.]” In response to these specific complaints about the third\\namended complaint, Creditors’ Trust made the following statements:\\n If the Court . . . says that we need to have an Exhibit [4] 11 that\\n runs for thousands of pages and has every payment and every date\\n of payment, that’s within our ability and we would certainly\\n appreciate leave to do so if the Court feels that our pleadings need\\n to go that far.\\n . . . Well, here, I’m advising the Court that . . . it would not\\n be futile to ask us to expand Exhibit [4]. We can certainly do that.\\n . . . [W]e believe that Exhibit [4] was reasonable under the\\n circumstances, and if the Court disagrees, we would ask for leave\\n to fix it.\\n\\nCreditors’ Trust characterizes these statements as a sufficient motion for leave\\nto amend the third amended complaint. We agree.\\n A party requesting leave to amend its pleadings must “give the court\\nsome notice of the nature of his or her proposed amendments.” Thomas, 832\\nF.3d at 590. The party requesting amendment must describe with\\nparticularity the grounds for the amendment and the relief sought, but a\\n“formal motion” is not required. Id. For his part, the bankruptcy judge appears\\nto have found that Creditors’ Trust’s oral statement properly requested leave\\nbecause he recommended that the district court permit repleading. And given\\nthe informal nature of bankruptcy court proceedings, it is not unusual that\\nCreditors’ Trust did not follow its oral request up with a written motion. 12\\n\\n\\n 11The hearings before the bankruptcy judge were joint hearings in all five adversary\\nproceedings. In the live pleadings in three of those cases, Nos. 17-11480, 18-10051, and 18-\\n10056, the equivalent of Exhibit 4 here was instead labeled Exhibit 5. Thus, the parties’\\nreferences to Exhibit 5 at the hearing encompass Exhibit 4 in this case as well.\\n\\n 12Although Creditors’ Trust’s briefs do not address it, Creditors’ Trust did make a\\nwritten request to amend in the district court before final judgment. In its response to the\\nLicensees’ objections to the bankruptcy judge’s report and recommendation, Creditors’ Trust\\n 27\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 28 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nBecause the oral statement gave the court notice of the nature of the\\namendment—expanding Exhibit 4—and the grounds—repleading would not\\nbe futile because Creditors’ Trust had the ability to provide further detail about\\nthe transfers to the Licensees—we hold that Creditors’ Trust properly moved\\nfor leave to amend before final judgment.\\n The district court’s dismissal order explained that it was declining to\\npermit leave to amend because the Licensees’ motions to dismiss alerted\\nCreditors’ Trust to the deficiencies in its pleadings; Creditors’ Trust did not\\nindicate in its response to the motions that it could replead to correct the\\npleading issues; and due to the number of complaint amendments it had\\nalready made, Creditors’ Trust had “had a fair opportunity to make [its] case.”\\nWhile it is true that the Licensees’ motions identified many of the pleading\\nissues that the district court relied upon, Creditors’ Trust had a good-faith\\nbasis for believing that its pleadings were sufficient: it used the same pleading\\nmethodology in its case against Pardo and the LP insiders, and the district\\ncourt there denied Rule 12(b)(6) challenges similar to those made in this case.\\nSee Moran, No. 4:15-CV-905, Dkt. No. 192. Moreover, Creditors’ Trust\\nattempted to address the alleged pleading defects in its second and third\\namended complaints, both of which it filed well before the bankruptcy judge\\nissued his report and recommendation—the first time a court found that its\\npleadings were deficient. In addition, Creditors’ Trust’s third complaint\\namendment was made in response to the confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan\\nin the underlying bankruptcy case, which broadened the nature of the claims\\nthat Creditors’ Trust could assert.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nasked the district court to accept the recommendation to grant leave to amend and offered to\\nfile “more detailed charts.” The district court acknowledged this request in a footnote in its\\norder on the motions to dismiss.\\n 28\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 29 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\n Considering the above facts and circumstances, we conclude that the\\nLicensees have not demonstrated undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on\\nthe part of Creditors’ Trust, nor have they convinced the court that permitting\\nCreditors’ Trust to replead would be unduly prejudicial. It was therefore an\\nabuse of discretion for the district court to deny leave to amend for any of these\\nreasons. See Brown v. Taylor, 911 F.3d 235, 247 (5th Cir. 2018) (district court\\nabused its discretion in denying leave to amend where plaintiff explained why\\nhe believed his first amended complaint was sufficient, offered a proposed\\namendment, and had not repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies). The only\\nproper ground on which the district court could have declined to grant leave to\\namend was futility. Accordingly, we will evaluate whether repleading each of\\nCreditors’ Trust’s claims would be futile based on its oral motion for leave to\\namend. See Thomas, 832 F.3d at 592 (evaluating futility based on specific\\namendments plaintiff requested).\\n The pleading defects that the district court and bankruptcy judge\\nidentified with Counts 1–4 resulted largely from the unique pleading\\nmethodology used in the third amended complaint. Specifically, Creditors’\\nTrust relies on Exhibit 4 to set out the details of the transfers it wishes to avoid\\nas either fraudulent or preferential transfers. Exhibit 4, in turn, lists the\\nLicensees’ names and the sum of the transfers allegedly received by each\\nLicensee annually from 2008 to 2015. Exhibit 4 does not, however, identify the\\ntransferor entity for each transfer, the amount of any particular transfer, or\\nthe specific date on which any transfer was made. As we explained in Section\\nII.A., this information is not required to adequately state a claim on Counts 1–\\n4, but the district court expressly relied on these omissions to dismiss these\\ncounts.\\n The substance of Creditors’ Trust’s oral request to replead at the first\\nbankruptcy hearing reveals that it possesses the kind of detailed information\\n 29\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 30 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nabout the alleged fraudulent transfers—dates, amounts, etc.—that the district\\ncourt held was necessary to adequately state a claim. And the specific\\namendment to the third amended complaint that Creditors’ Trust suggested—\\nexpanding Exhibit 4—would include this information in the next iteration of\\nthe complaint. Thus, even if the district court correctly dismissed Counts 1–4\\non these grounds, repleading to add specificity regarding the allegedly\\nfraudulent transfers would not have been futile. 13 Accordingly, the district\\ncourt erred in declining to grant leave to amend the allegations on Counts 1–\\n4. And because Counts 6 and 9 are derivative of Counts 1–4, the district court\\nimproperly denied leave to amend those claims as well.\\n Turning to Count 5, while expanding Exhibit 4 as Creditors’ Trust\\nrequested would provide additional information relevant to this claim, it would\\nnot address the third amended complaint’s failure to plead element 5 of a\\npreferential transfer: that the Licensees’ commissions were greater than the\\namount they would have received through a chapter 7 bankruptcy. See\\nLormand, 565 F.3d at 257. Therefore, granting leave to amend as to Count 5\\nwould have been futile.\\n As for the other claims that Creditors’ Trust asserted in the third\\namended complaint—Count 8, equitable subordination; Count 10, negligent\\nmisrepresentation; Count 11, violations of the Texas Securities Act; and Count\\n12, breach of fiduciary duty—Exhibit 4 does not contain information relevant\\nto these causes of action. In fact, Counts 10–12 expressly rely on a different\\ncomplaint exhibit, Exhibit 5, to aggregate the pertinent details. As a result,\\n\\n\\n\\n 13 The proposed fourth amended complaint that Creditors’ Trust submitted with its\\nmotion for reconsideration confirms that expanding Exhibit 4 would not be futile. The\\nexpanded Exhibit 4 attached to that complaint—now re-labeled as Exhibit 1—lists each\\nallegedly fraudulent or preferential transfer in meticulous detail, setting out the date,\\namount, transferor, transferee, and purpose, as well as the creditors it alleges were defrauded\\nas a result of that transfer. This amendment cures any pleading defects in Counts 1–4.\\n 30\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 31 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nexpanding Exhibit 4 would not address the pleading deficiencies in Counts 8,\\n11, and 12 that we described in the previous section, nor would it address the\\npleading defects the district court identified in Count 10. Because this is the\\nonly complaint amendment that Creditors’ Trust suggested in its oral motion\\nfor leave to amend, granting the motion would have been futile as to these\\nclaims. Thus, the district court did not err in declining to permit Creditors’\\nTrust to replead Counts 8, 10, 11, and 12.\\n C.\\n This court reviews the denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse\\nof discretion. See ICEE Distribs., Inc. v. J&J Snack Foods Corp., 445 F.3d 841,\\n847 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, the district court’s decision need only\\nbe reasonable. Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir.\\n1993). This court construes a motion for reconsideration filed within 28 days\\nof final judgment as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or\\namend the district court’s judgment. Mason v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 671 F.\\nApp’x 880, 884 (5th Cir. 2016); see also Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 303\\n& n.7 (5th Cir. 2010). “A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule\\n59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must\\npresent newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments\\nwhich could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” Schiller\\nv. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal\\nquotation marks omitted) (quoting Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854,\\n863–64 (5th Cir. 2003)).\\n Because we conclude that Counts 1–4, 6, and 9 were adequately\\npleaded—or, in the alternative, that the district court should have granted\\nleave to amend—we need not reach the question of whether the district court\\nalso erred in denying Creditors’ Trust’s motion for reconsideration with respect\\nto those counts. The same can be said for Count 10, which we also conclude\\n 31\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 32 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nwas adequately pleaded in the third amended complaint. As for Creditors’\\nTrust’s remaining claims—Counts 5, 8, 11, and 12—the district court properly\\ndismissed them both because they were inadequately pleaded and because\\nCreditors’ Trust’s proposed amendment was futile as to these claims. We next\\nconsider whether the district court nevertheless abused its discretion in\\ndenying Creditors’ Trust’s motion for reconsideration on these counts.\\n Assuming arguendo that Creditors’ Trust’s Rule 59(e) motion was timely\\nfiled, 14 we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. As we\\nexplain more fully below, the proposed fourth amended complaint attached to\\nthe motion abandons Count 5 and still fails to state a claim on Counts 8 and\\n12, so Creditors’ Trust has not demonstrated that the district court made a\\n“manifest error of law” in dismissing those claims. See Schiller, 342 F.3d at\\n567. And although the fourth amended complaint’s allegations on Count 11\\nare likely sufficient, Creditors’ Trust “could, and should” have requested leave\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 The Licensees argue that the motion for reconsideration was untimely. According\\nto the Licensees, the 14-day deadline for filing post-judgment motions in Federal Rule of\\nBankruptcy Procedure 9023 governs the motion, not the 28-day deadline in Rule 59. Because\\nCreditors’ Trust filed its motion 28 days after judgment was entered, it failed to file within\\nthe bankruptcy deadline. Creditors’ Trust responds that the 14-day deadline in Bankruptcy\\nRule 9023 “applies solely to the transition of jurisdiction from a bankruptcy court to an Article\\nIII court.” Where, as here, a district court has withdrawn the bankruptcy reference,\\nCreditors’ Trust argues that the Bankruptcy Rules are a “procedural nullity.” Although it\\ndid not state the reasons for its conclusion in its order on the motion for reconsideration, the\\ndistrict court agreed with Creditors’ Trust that the motion was not untimely.\\n At best, whether the motion for reconsideration was untimely filed is unclear. In In\\nre Butler, this court found that Bankruptcy Rule 9023 does not apply to appeals from the\\ndistrict court to the court of appeals. Butler v. Merchants Bank & Tr. Co. (In re Butler, Inc.),\\n2 F.3d 154, 155 (5th Cir. 1993). Instead, Bankruptcy Rule 8015 “provides the sole mechanism\\nfor filing a motion for rehearing” in the district court, and Rule 8015 sets a 10-day deadline\\nfor doing so. Id. (quoting Aycock v. Eaton (In re Eichelberger), 943 F.2d 536, 538 (5th Cir.\\n1991)); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8015. Thus, if Butler requires the court to construe the motion for\\nreconsideration as a motion for rehearing, it was untimely. See id. But this court has not\\naddressed which rule—Rule 59, Bankruptcy Rule 8015, or Bankruptcy Rule 9023—governs\\nwhen a district court withdraws the bankruptcy reference in an adversary proceeding, and\\nwe need not do so today.\\n 32\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 33 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nto amend its pleadings on that claim “before the judgment issued.” Id. We will\\naddress each of these claims in turn.\\n 1. Count 5 – Preferential Transfer\\n Creditors’ Trust’s proposed fourth amended complaint abandons this\\nclaim. The district court accordingly did not abuse its discretion in denying\\nthe motion to reconsider as to Count 5.\\n 2. Count 8 – Equitable Subordination\\n The fourth amended complaint’s allegations on the equitable\\nsubordination claim largely duplicate the third amended complaint’s\\nallegations on that claim. Significantly, the fourth amended complaint still\\nfails to plead into one of the three categories of cases in which we permit\\nequitable subordination. See In re Cajun Elec., 119 F.3d at 357. Accordingly,\\npermitting Creditors’ Trust to replead Count 8 would have been futile as well.\\n 3. Count 11 – Violation of the Texas Securities Act\\n The fourth amended complaint states a claim under Section 33(A)(1) of\\nthe Texas Securities Act, adequately alleging violations of Sections 7 and 12.\\nSee Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 581-33(A)(1), 581-7, 581-12. The fourth amended\\ncomplaint remedies the pleading defects in Count 11 in the third amended\\ncomplaint: specifically, it alleges that each of the Licensees—identified by\\nname in Exhibit 4 to the fourth amended complaint—was an unlicensed seller\\nof securities and that Creditors’ Trust seeks to recover damages on behalf of\\nthe investors listed by name in Exhibit 4 in the amount of the purchase price\\nof their investments. See Matlock v. Hill, 2016 WL 3659988, at *5 (Tex. App.—\\nAmarillo June 30, 2016, no pet.) (“[Seller’s] lack of a license coupled with his\\nselling of . . . a security in the guise of a life settlement evinced a violation of\\nart. 581-12(A) of the [Texas Securities Act].”).\\n Nonetheless, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion\\nin denying Creditors’ Trust motion for reconsideration on this claim. Because\\n 33\\n\\f Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 34 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 17-11477\\nCreditors’ Trust’s request for leave to amend focused exclusively on expanding\\nExhibit 4 to the third amended complaint, the first time Creditors’ Trust\\nsought to amend its Count 11 allegations was in its motion for reconsideration\\nafter the district court’s judgment of dismissal. See Williams v. McWilliams,\\n20 F.3d 465, 465 (5th Cir. 1994) (finding no abuse of discretion in denial of\\nleave to amend when plaintiff first requested leave in a motion to reconsider\\nafter final judgment). And that motion did not point to any “newly discovered\\nevidence,” nor did it explain why the district court should consider Creditors’\\nTrust’s “arguments which could, and should, have been made before the\\njudgment issued.” See Schiller, 342 F.3d at 567; Briddle v. Scott, 63 F.3d 364,\\n379 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[W]e have consistently upheld the denial of leave to\\namend where the party seeking to amend has not clearly established that he\\ncould not reasonably have raised the new matter prior to the trial court’s\\nmerits ruling.”). The district court’s decision on this claim was reasonable.\\n 4. Count 12 – Breach of Fiduciary Duty\\n On Count 12, the fourth amended complaint does not remedy the third\\namended complaint’s failure to allege facts regarding the nature of the\\nrelationship between any Licensee and any investor. Creditors’ Trust still does\\nnot plead the type of information required under Romano. See 834 F.2d at 530.\\nAs a result, the fourth amended complaint does not adequately allege that any\\nLicensee breached a fiduciary duty. The district court therefore properly\\ndenied Creditors’ Trust’s motion for reconsideration as to Count 12.\\n III.\\n We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of dismissal as to Counts 5, 8,\\n11, and 12. However, we REVERSE the dismissal of Counts 1–4, 6, 9, and 10\\nand REMAND them for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 34\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2067,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4625412,"string":"4,625,412"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Jessica C. MCGLOTHIN, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"McGlothin v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-31"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-60338"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Barksdale, Southwick, Haynes\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n No. 18-60338 FILED\\n May 31, 2019\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\nJESSICA C. MCGLOTHIN, Clerk\\n\\n Plaintiff - Appellee\\n\\nv.\\n\\nSTATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,\\n\\n Defendant - Appellant\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Mississippi\\n USDC No.: 1:17-CV-83\\n\\n\\nBefore BARKSDALE, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.\\nRHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:\\n At issue in this diversity action is whether, as the district court\\nconcluded, two sections of Mississippi’s Uninsured Motorist (UM) Act,\\nMississippi Code §§ 83-11-101 et seq., are repugnant: §§ 83-11-101(1) (requiring\\nautomobile insurers provide UM coverage to extent insured is “legally entitled to\\nrecover”) and 83-11-103(c)(vi) (defining “uninsured motor vehicle”, as used in UM\\nAct, to include vehicle “owned or operated by a person protected by immunity\\nunder the Mississippi Tort Claims Act”). State Farm Mutual Automobile\\nInsurance Company maintains: the sections are not repugnant; and, as a\\nresult, it is not liable for UM coverage. Therefore, it challenges the district\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\ncourt’s, on cross-motions for summary judgment, denying its motion in that\\nregard and granting Jessica C. McGlothin’s. That part of the judgment in favor\\nof McGlothin is VACATED, and judgment is RENDERED for State Farm.\\n I.\\n In February 2016, a fireman with the Biloxi, Mississippi, fire department,\\nrear-ended McGlothin’s vehicle. The fireman was acting in the course and scope\\nof his employment with the fire department at the time of the accident, and was\\nnot—as McGlothin concedes—acting “in reckless disregard of [her] safety and\\nwell-being”. See, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(c) (Mississippi Tort Claims Act\\n(MTCA); police-and-fire-protection immunity clause).\\n At the time of the accident, McGlothin’s vehicle was insured under a State\\nFarm policy, which provided UM coverage. As required by the UM Act, the UM\\nprovision in the policy provides, in pertinent part: State Farm “will pay\\ncompensatory damages for bodily injury and property damage an insured is\\nlegally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle”.\\n(Emphasis omitted.)\\n Along that line, the UM Act’s definition of an “uninsured motor vehicle”\\nincludes, inter alia, “a vehicle owned or operated by a person protected by\\nimmunity under the [MTCA]”. § 83-11-103(c)(vi). Under the MTCA, employees\\nof governmental entities are personally immune from claims arising from acts\\nperformed within the course and scope of their employment. § 11-46-7(2)\\n(government-employee immunity clause). Because the fireman is protected by\\nimmunity under the MTCA, the fire-department vehicle he was driving is\\nconsidered an uninsured motor vehicle as defined by the UM Act. (As explained\\nmore fully infra, the city and fire department were also immune from suit\\npursuant to the MTCA’s police-and-fire-protection immunity clause.)\\n McGlothin filed this action in February 2017 in Mississippi state court\\nagainst the fireman, the fire department, and the City of Biloxi, claiming\\nnegligence. And, in the alternative, she included State Farm as a defendant,\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\nseeking UM coverage in the event the other parties were entitled to sovereign\\nimmunity, pursuant to the MTCA, Mississippi Code §§ 11-46-1 et seq. State Farm\\nremoved this action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.\\n McGlothin’s claims against the fireman, the city, and the fire department\\nwere dismissed because McGlothin failed to serve them with process. (This\\ndismissal created complete diversity; and, therefore, the district court had\\njurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group,\\nL.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571–73 (2004); Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68–78\\n(1996).) Instead, McGlothin pursued her claims against the fireman, the fire\\ndepartment, and the city in state court. The state court granted defendants’\\nsummary-judgment motion, concluding: “[The fireman] was not acting with\\nreckless disregard as required for a governmental entity or governmental\\nemployee to be held liable under the [MTCA]”. McGlothin v. Mason, No. A2402-\\n17-20 (Harrison Cty. Cir. Ct. 30 Nov. 2017).\\n In this action, McGlothin and State Farm filed cross-motions for summary\\njudgment. The district court granted McGlothin’s, and partially denied State\\nFarm’s, concluding McGlothin is entitled to UM coverage, pursuant to its ruling\\nMississippi Code §§ 83-11-101(1) and 83-11-103(c)(vi) are repugnant, with the\\nlatter being the more specific, controlling section. McGlothin v. State Farm Mut.\\nIns., 297 F. Supp. 3d 635, 638 (S.D. Miss. 2018).\\n Section 83-11-101 (policy requirement) lists mandatory provisions to be\\ncontained in automobile-liability-insurance policies, including requiring\\nautomobile insurers provide UM coverage to the extent the insured is “legally\\nentitled to recover”. As discussed supra, § 83-11-103(c) (uninsured-motor-vehicle\\ndefinition) contains definitions of the term “uninsured motor vehicle” as used in\\nthe UM Act, which includes, in subpart (c)(vi), a vehicle “owned or operated by a\\nperson protected by immunity under the [MTCA]”.\\n In granting summary judgment against State Farm on the issue of UM\\ncoverage, the district court concluded: under State Farm’s proposed reading of\\n 3\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\nthe two sections, “[a]n insured would never be ‘legally entitled to recover’ damages\\nfrom a person or entity entitled to immunity under the [MTCA]”; therefore, the\\nsections are repugnant; “and the only way to carry out the Mississippi\\nLegislature’s intent in enacting Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-103(c)(vi) [(uninsured-\\nmotor-vehicle definition)] is to view it as an exception to Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-\\n101(1) [(policy requirement)]”. McGlothin, 297 F. Supp. 3d at 638.\\n As a result, the court concluded § 83-11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle\\ndefinition) was the more specific, and, therefore, controlling section, and\\nMcGlothin was entitled to UM benefits. Id. (On the other hand, the court granted\\nState Farm’s summary-judgment motion against McGlothin’s claims for extra-\\ncontractual and punitive damages based on State Farm’s denial of her UM claim.\\nId. at 639. McGlothin did not appeal that decision.)\\n II.\\n It hardly bears repeating that the “grant[] and denial[] of summary\\njudgment [is reviewed] de novo”. Century Sur. Co. v. Seidel, 893 F.3d 328, 332\\n(5th Cir. 2018) (quotations and citation omitted). Equally well-known is that\\nsummary judgment is proper “if the movant shows . . . there is no genuine\\ndispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a\\nmatter of law”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “When parties file cross-motions for\\nsummary judgment, we review each party’s motion independently, viewing the\\nevidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”\\nCooley v. Hous. Auth. of Slidell, 747 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal\\nquotations and citation omitted).\\n The facts are undisputed. We must determine whether the two\\nprovisions of Mississippi’s UM Act are repugnant. Obviously, Mississippi\\nsubstantive law applies to this diversity action. Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304\\nU.S. 64, 78–79 (1938).\\n\\n\\n\\n 4\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\n The UM Act requires all automobile-liability-insurance policies to contain\\na provision “undertaking to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally\\nentitled to recover as damages for bodily injury or death from the owner or operator\\nof an uninsured motor vehicle”. § 83-11-101(1) (policy requirement) (emphases\\nadded). Pertinent to this action, the Act was amended in 2009 to expand the\\ndefinition of “uninsured motor vehicle” to include the above-described “motor\\nvehicle owned or operated by a person protected by immunity under the [MTCA]\\n. . . if the insured has exhausted all administrative remedies under that chapter”.\\n§ 83-11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle definition).\\n The MTCA generally waives “the immunity of the state and its political\\nsubdivisions from claims for money damages arising out of the torts of such\\ngovernmental entities and the torts of their employees while acting within the\\ncourse and scope of their employment”. § 11-46-5(1). “But it exempts certain\\nclaims from that immunity waiver.” City of Clinton v. Tornes, 252 So. 3d 34, 37\\n(Miss. 2018) (citing § 11-46-9).\\n One of those exemptions is found in the MTCA’s earlier-referenced police-\\nand-fire-protection immunity clause:\\n A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course\\n and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any\\n claim . . . [a]rising out of any act or omission of an employee of a\\n governmental entity engaged in the performance or execution of\\n duties or activities relating to police or fire protection unless the\\n employee acted in reckless disregard of the safety and well-being of\\n any person not engaged in criminal activity at the time of injury[.]\\n§ 11-46-9(1)(c) (emphases added).\\n The MTCA also provides that “no employee [of a governmental entity] shall\\nbe held personally liable for acts or omissions occurring within the course and\\nscope of the employee’s duties”. § 11-46-7(2) (government-employee immunity\\nclause)(emphasis added); see also Tornes, 252 So. 3d at 37.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 5\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\n A.\\n In instances where the State’s highest court has not spoken on the direct\\nquestion, federal courts are required to make an “Erie guess and determine, in\\n[their] best judgment how [the State’s highest court] would resolve the issue if\\npresented with the same case”. Temple v. McCall, 720 F.3d 301, 307 (5th Cir.\\n2013) (first alteration in original) (internal quotations and citation omitted).\\nIn doing so, our court “defer[s] to intermediate state appellate court decisions\\nunless convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state\\nwould decide otherwise”. Mem’l Hermann Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. Eurocopter\\nDeutschland, GMBH, 524 F.3d 676, 678 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations\\nand citation omitted); but, we “need not necessarily defer to state trial court\\ndecisions”, particularly when they are unpublished, Roecker v. United States,\\n379 F.2d 400, 406 (5th Cir. 1967) (citing King v. Order of United Commercial\\nTravelers of Am., 333 U.S. 153 (1948)).\\n The Mississippi Supreme Court has not decided whether the two sections\\nat issue are repugnant. And, to make our Erie guess far more difficult, neither\\nhas the Mississippi Court of Appeals. Therefore, State Farm urges we consider\\ntwo Mississippi circuit court decisions, each of which was rendered by a\\ndifferent court.\\n First, in 2009, a circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of\\nState Farm in Rayner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,\\nNo. 2009-36 (Rankin Cty. Cir. Ct. 9 Dec. 2009). In Rayner, the circuit court\\nstated: “[S]ince . . . Plaintiffs are not legally entitled to recover against the\\nDeputy/County, etc., the Court finds that no UM benefits are owed to Plaintiffs\\nunder the State Farm policy”. Id.\\n The accident in Rayner, however, occurred in 2008, and, because the\\njudgment provides no reasoning, it is unclear whether the court applied the\\nUM Act as written before or after the 2009 amendment to § 83-11-103(c)(vi)\\n 6\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\n(uninsured-motor-vehicle definition). And, even if the court did apply the 2009\\namendment, it is unclear whether the parties raised the issue presented by\\nthis action: whether §§ 83-11-101 (policy requirement) and 83-11-103(c)(vi)\\n(uninsured-motor-vehicle definition) are repugnant. Moreover, the Mississippi\\nSupreme Court affirmed Rayner in a per curiam affirmance, No. 2010-CA-\\n00738-SCT (Miss. 21 July 2011), which, according to Mississippi Rule of\\nAppellate Procedure 35-A(c), “ha[s] no precedential value”.\\n Second, in 2014, the other Mississippi circuit court granted summary\\njudgment in favor of State Farm, concluding: “[B]ecause the Plaintiff’s claims\\nagainst [the law-enforcement officer] are barred by the police and fire\\nprotection exemption to the MTCA, . . . Plaintiff is not legally entitled to recover\\nUM benefits from State Farm”. Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., No.\\nL12-545 (Lafayette Cty. Cir. Ct. 16 Oct. 2014). Therefore, citing Fidelity Union\\nTrust Co. v. Field, 311 U.S. 169 (1940), State Farm contends the district court\\nreversibly erred by not considering the order in Williams.\\n It is true that, in Field, the Supreme Court held, because of the uniformity\\nbetween two state-trial-court decisions interpreting the state statute in issue, the\\nfederal third circuit “was not at liberty to reject these decisions merely because it\\ndid not agree with their reasoning”. 311 U.S. at 179. But in 1967 in Roecker, our\\ncourt distinguished Field, relying on the 1948 decision in King, 333 U.S. at 159–\\n62. See Roecker, 379 F.2d at 406 (ruling, as quoted supra: “a federal court need\\nnot necessarily defer to state trial court decisions”). Because Mississippi trial\\ncourts are not “court[s] of statewide jurisdiction”, unlike the chancery court in\\nField, we need not defer to these unpublished circuit-court decisions. Id.\\n B.\\n As discussed above, § 83-11-101(1) (policy requirement) limits UM coverage\\nto those sums the insured “shall be legally entitled to recover as damages for bodily\\ninjury or death from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle”.\\n\\n 7\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\n(Emphases added.) It is uncontested that the fireman was acting in the course\\nand scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and, therefore, pursuant\\nto the MTCA’s government-employee immunity clause, § 11-46-7(2), McGlothin is\\nnot “legally entitled to recover” damages from him. Moreover, because it is also\\nuncontested the fireman was not acting with “reckless disregard” for McGlothin’s\\nsafety or well-being, the fire department and the city are also immune, pursuant\\nto the MTCA’s police-and-fire-protection immunity clause, § 11-46-9(1)(c), and\\nMcGlothin is not “legally entitled to recover” damages from either entity.\\nAccordingly, under § 83-11-101(1) (policy requirement), McGlothin cannot recover\\nUM benefits from State Farm because she is not “legally entitled to recover” from\\nthe fireman, the fire department, or the city.\\n McGlothin contends, however, consistent with the district court’s ruling,\\nthat the 2009 amendment expanding the definition of “uninsured motor vehicle”\\nto include “[a] motor vehicle owned or operated by a person protected by immunity\\nunder the [MTCA]”, § 83-11-103(c)(vi), is repugnant to § 83-11-101(1) (policy\\nrequirement), because, otherwise, an insured would never be “legally entitled to\\nrecover” from “a person protected by immunity under the [MTCA]”.\\n “[S]tatutes on the same subject, although in apparent conflict, should if\\npossible be construed in harmony with each other to give effect to each”. Tunica\\nCty. v. Hampton Co. Nat. Sur., LLC, 27 So. 3d 1128, 1134 (Miss. 2009) (quoting\\nMiss. Gaming Comm’n v. Imperial Palace of Miss., Inc., 751 So. 2d 1025, 1029\\n(Miss. 1999)); see also Goolsby v. Blumenthal, 581 F.2d 455, 461 (5th Cir. 1978)\\n(“Where the two statutes in question are capable of standing together, there is no\\nirreconcilable conflict.”).\\n There are scenarios in which §§ 83-11-101(1) (policy requirement) and 83-\\n11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle definition) can be construed in harmony.\\nFor example, consider a hypothetical using the facts of this case, but in which the\\nfireman was acting in reckless disregard for McGlothin’s safety. The fire-\\ndepartment vehicle would still be an “uninsured motor vehicle” because it was\\n 8\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\n“operated by a person protected by immunity under the [MTCA]”—the fireman.\\nBut, because, in this hypothetical, the fireman was acting in “reckless disregard”\\nfor McGlothin’s safety, McGlothin would be “legally entitled to recover” damages\\nfrom the fire department or the city, pursuant to MTCA § 11-46-9(1)(c) (police-\\nand-fire-protection immunity clause); and, therefore, McGlothin would be entitled\\nto UM benefits under the statute and policy. This scenario alone defeats\\nMcGlothin’s claim.\\n Another example would be when a city employee (not a fireman or police\\nofficer protected by the police-and-fire-protection immunity clause of the MTCA,\\n§ 11-46-9(1)(c)) is driving a city vehicle in the course and scope of his employment\\nand is involved in an accident caused by the city employee’s violating a traffic law.\\nThe employee would have immunity pursuant to MTCA § 11-46-7(2) (government-\\nemployee immunity clause), and, therefore, the vehicle would be an “uninsured\\nmotor vehicle” because it was “operated by a person protected by immunity under\\nthe [MTCA]”, see § 83-11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle definition). The city,\\nhowever, would be liable, because of the general waiver of immunity under MTCA\\n§ 11-46-5(1); and, therefore, the insured would be “legally entitled to recover” from\\nthe city, resulting in the insurer’s being required to pay UM benefits. See Mixon\\nv. Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 183 So. 3d 90, 94 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (ruling the\\ndepartment was not immune because its employee “did not fall within [any]\\nexception[ to liability], and [the employee’s] duty to adhere to applicable traffic\\nregulations was in no way discretionary”).\\n When pressed at oral argument here, McGlothin countered these scenarios\\nrender § 83-11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle definition) meaningless,\\nbecause, in them, the governmental entity’s insurance, in any event, would pay\\nthe claim. However, as State Farm notes, the MTCA only waives immunity up to\\n$500,000. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-15(1)(c). Therefore, for any claim in excess\\nof $500,000 for which the governmental entity has waived immunity, the\\ngovernmental entity’s insurance would pay up to $500,000, and then the insured’s\\n 9\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\nUM carrier would be liable for any remainder. See, e.g., City of Jackson v. Perry,\\n764 So. 2d 373, 381–83 (Miss. 2000) (holding insurer required to pay remainder of\\ndamages above statutory cap).\\n That these scenarios may not occur very often does not, of course, render\\nthe two sections repugnant. Furthermore, at oral argument, McGlothin’s counsel\\nadmitted “repugnant” is not the word he would employ to describe the sections.\\nOral Argument at 35:41–46. Instead, he stated he would describe them as\\n“confusing”. Oral Argument at 35:50–55. Obviously, the two sections’ being\\n“confusing” does not equate to repugnancy. Our charge, as noted, is to read them\\nin harmony, if possible. As shown, it is possible to do so.\\n It is true, as McGlothin contends, that the UM Act is to be “construed\\nliberally to provide coverage and strictly to avoid or preclude exceptions or\\nexemptions from coverage”. Miss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. Garrett, 487 So. 2d\\n1320, 1323 (Miss. 1986) (citation omitted). But “[l]imiting UM coverage is not in\\nissue here, . . . for there is no person from whom [plaintiff in this action is] legally\\nentitled to recover damages pursuant to the UM policy or the statute; at least, not\\nuntil the legislature defines the required coverage differently”. Medders v. U.S.\\nFidelity & Guar. Co., 623 So. 2d 979, 988 (Miss. 1993) (citation omitted).\\n Along that line, and regarding McGlothin’s contention that the 2009\\namendment created an exception to the “legally entitled to recover” requirement,\\n“[a]n exception must be clear from the language of the statute and cannot be\\ncreated by construction”. Imperial Palace of Miss., 751 So. 2d at 1028 (citing Miss.\\nDep’t of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks v. Miss. Wildlife Enf’t Officers’ Ass’n, 740 So.\\n2d 925, 931 (Miss. 1999)). And, “[t]he statutory language, legally entitled to\\nrecover, is ‘simply too unambiguous to admit of judicially created exception . . .’”.\\nMedders, 623 So. 2d at 989 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Of course, if\\nthe Mississippi legislature had wanted to exempt “motor vehicle[s] owned or\\noperated by . . . person[s] protected by immunity under the [MTCA]” from the\\n“legally entitled to recover” requirement, it could have easily and explicitly done\\n 10\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\nso. See, e.g., Miss. Wildlife Enf’t Officers’ Ass’n, 740 So. 2d at 932 (quoting State\\nv. Heard, 151 So. 2d 417, 420 (Miss. 1963)). But, it did not.\\n The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “the clear meaning of the\\nphrase legally entitled to recover found in the Mississippi UM statute limits\\nthe scope of the coverage mandated by the statute to those instances in which the\\ninsured would be entitled at the time of injury to recover through legal action.\\nThere is no statutory mandate to provide coverage in instances where the alleged\\ntortfeasor is immune from liability”. Medders, 623 So. 2d at 989 (emphasis in\\noriginal) (internal citations omitted). The 2009 amendment did not create this\\nstatutory mandate. In short, and pursuant to our Erie guess, McGlothin was not\\nlegally entitled to recover from the fireman, the fire department, or the city, and,\\ntherefore, is not legally entitled to recover UM benefits from State Farm.\\n III.\\n For the foregoing reasons, that part of the judgment in favor of McGlothin\\nis VACATED, and judgment is RENDERED for State Farm.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 11\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4402665/\", \"author_raw\": \"RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BARKSDALE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SOUTHWICK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"HAYNES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625412/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Jessica C. MCGLOTHIN, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-31\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nCase: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n United States Court of Appeals\n Fifth Circuit\n\n No. 18-60338 FILED\n May 31, 2019\n Lyle W. Cayce\nJESSICA C. MCGLOTHIN, Clerk\n\n Plaintiff - Appellee\n\nv.\n\nSTATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,\n\n Defendant - Appellant\n\n\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Southern District of Mississippi\n USDC No.: 1:17-CV-83\n\n\nBefore BARKSDALE, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.\nRHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:\n At issue in this diversity action is whether, as the district court\nconcluded, two sections of Mississippi’s Uninsured Motorist (UM) Act,\nMississippi Code §§ 83-11-101 et seq., are repugnant: §§ 83-11-101(1) (requiring\nautomobile insurers provide UM coverage to extent insured is “legally entitled to\nrecover”) and 83-11-103(c)(vi) (defining “uninsured motor vehicle”, as used in UM\nAct, to include vehicle “owned or operated by a person protected by immunity\nunder the Mississippi Tort Claims Act”). State Farm Mutual Automobile\nInsurance Company maintains: the sections are not repugnant; and, as a\nresult, it is not liable for UM coverage. Therefore, it challenges the district\n\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 18-60338\ncourt’s, on cross-motions for summary judgment, denying its motion in that\nregard and granting Jessica C. McGlothin’s. That part of the judgment in favor\nof McGlothin is VACATED, and judgment is RENDERED for State Farm.\n I.\n In February 2016, a fireman with the Biloxi, Mississippi, fire department,\nrear-ended McGlothin’s vehicle. The fireman was acting in the course and scope\nof his employment with the fire department at the time of the accident, and was\nnot—as McGlothin concedes—acting “in reckless disregard of [her] safety and\nwell-being”. See, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(c) (Mississippi Tort Claims Act\n(MTCA); police-and-fire-protection immunity clause).\n At the time of the accident, McGlothin’s vehicle was insured under a State\nFarm policy, which provided UM coverage. As required by the UM Act, the UM\nprovision in the policy provides, in pertinent part: State Farm “will pay\ncompensatory damages for bodily injury and property damage an insured is\nlegally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle”.\n(Emphasis omitted.)\n Along that line, the UM Act’s definition of an “uninsured motor vehicle”\nincludes, inter alia, “a vehicle owned or operated by a person protected by\nimmunity under the [MTCA]”. § 83-11-103(c)(vi). Under the MTCA, employees\nof governmental entities are personally immune from claims arising from acts\nperformed within the course and scope of their employment. § 11-46-7(2)\n(government-employee immunity clause). Because the fireman is protected by\nimmunity under the MTCA, the fire-department vehicle he was driving is\nconsidered an uninsured motor vehicle as defined by the UM Act. (As explained\nmore fully infra, the city and fire department were also immune from suit\npursuant to the MTCA’s police-and-fire-protection immunity clause.)\n McGlothin filed this action in February 2017 in Mississippi state court\nagainst the fireman, the fire department, and the City of Biloxi, claiming\nnegligence. And, in the alternative, she included State Farm as a defendant,\n 2\n\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 18-60338\nseeking UM coverage in the event the other parties were entitled to sovereign\nimmunity, pursuant to the MTCA, Mississippi Code §§ 11-46-1 et seq. State Farm\nremoved this action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.\n McGlothin’s claims against the fireman, the city, and the fire department\nwere dismissed because McGlothin failed to serve them with process. (This\ndismissal created complete diversity; and, therefore, the district court had\njurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group,\nL.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571–73 (2004); Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68–78\n(1996).) Instead, McGlothin pursued her claims against the fireman, the fire\ndepartment, and the city in state court. The state court granted defendants’\nsummary-judgment motion, concluding: “[The fireman] was not acting with\nreckless disregard as required for a governmental entity or governmental\nemployee to be held liable under the [MTCA]”. McGlothin v. Mason, No. A2402-\n17-20 (Harrison Cty. Cir. Ct. 30 Nov. 2017).\n In this action, McGlothin and State Farm filed cross-motions for summary\njudgment. The district court granted McGlothin’s, and partially denied State\nFarm’s, concluding McGlothin is entitled to UM coverage, pursuant to its ruling\nMississippi Code §§ 83-11-101(1) and 83-11-103(c)(vi) are repugnant, with the\nlatter being the more specific, controlling section. McGlothin v. State Farm Mut.\nIns., 297 F. Supp. 3d 635, 638 (S.D. Miss. 2018).\n Section 83-11-101 (policy requirement) lists mandatory provisions to be\ncontained in automobile-liability-insurance policies, including requiring\nautomobile insurers provide UM coverage to the extent the insured is “legally\nentitled to recover”. As discussed supra, § 83-11-103(c) (uninsured-motor-vehicle\ndefinition) contains definitions of the term “uninsured motor vehicle” as used in\nthe UM Act, which includes, in subpart (c)(vi), a vehicle “owned or operated by a\nperson protected by immunity under the [MTCA]”.\n In granting summary judgment against State Farm on the issue of UM\ncoverage, the district court concluded: under State Farm’s proposed reading of\n 3\n\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 18-60338\nthe two sections, “[a]n insured would never be ‘legally entitled to recover’ damages\nfrom a person or entity entitled to immunity under the [MTCA]”; therefore, the\nsections are repugnant; “and the only way to carry out the Mississippi\nLegislature’s intent in enacting Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-103(c)(vi) [(uninsured-\nmotor-vehicle definition)] is to view it as an exception to Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-\n101(1) [(policy requirement)]”. McGlothin, 297 F. Supp. 3d at 638.\n As a result, the court concluded § 83-11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle\ndefinition) was the more specific, and, therefore, controlling section, and\nMcGlothin was entitled to UM benefits. Id. (On the other hand, the court granted\nState Farm’s summary-judgment motion against McGlothin’s claims for extra-\ncontractual and punitive damages based on State Farm’s denial of her UM claim.\nId. at 639. McGlothin did not appeal that decision.)\n II.\n It hardly bears repeating that the “grant[] and denial[] of summary\njudgment [is reviewed] de novo”. Century Sur. Co. v. Seidel, 893 F.3d 328, 332\n(5th Cir. 2018) (quotations and citation omitted). Equally well-known is that\nsummary judgment is proper “if the movant shows . . . there is no genuine\ndispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a\nmatter of law”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “When parties file cross-motions for\nsummary judgment, we review each party’s motion independently, viewing the\nevidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”\nCooley v. Hous. Auth. of Slidell, 747 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal\nquotations and citation omitted).\n The facts are undisputed. We must determine whether the two\nprovisions of Mississippi’s UM Act are repugnant. Obviously, Mississippi\nsubstantive law applies to this diversity action. Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304\nU.S. 64, 78–79 (1938).\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 18-60338\n The UM Act requires all automobile-liability-insurance policies to contain\na provision “undertaking to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally\nentitled to recover as damages for bodily injury or death from the owner or operator\nof an uninsured motor vehicle”. § 83-11-101(1) (policy requirement) (emphases\nadded). Pertinent to this action, the Act was amended in 2009 to expand the\ndefinition of “uninsured motor vehicle” to include the above-described “motor\nvehicle owned or operated by a person protected by immunity under the [MTCA]\n. . . if the insured has exhausted all administrative remedies under that chapter”.\n§ 83-11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle definition).\n The MTCA generally waives “the immunity of the state and its political\nsubdivisions from claims for money damages arising out of the torts of such\ngovernmental entities and the torts of their employees while acting within the\ncourse and scope of their employment”. § 11-46-5(1). “But it exempts certain\nclaims from that immunity waiver.” City of Clinton v. Tornes, 252 So. 3d 34, 37\n(Miss. 2018) (citing § 11-46-9).\n One of those exemptions is found in the MTCA’s earlier-referenced police-\nand-fire-protection immunity clause:\n A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course\n and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any\n claim . . . [a]rising out of any act or omission of an employee of a\n governmental entity engaged in the performance or execution of\n duties or activities relating to police or fire protection unless the\n employee acted in reckless disregard of the safety and well-being of\n any person not engaged in criminal activity at the time of injury[.]\n§ 11-46-9(1)(c) (emphases added).\n The MTCA also provides that “no employee [of a governmental entity] shall\nbe held personally liable for acts or omissions occurring within the course and\nscope of the employee’s duties”. § 11-46-7(2) (government-employee immunity\nclause)(emphasis added); see also Tornes, 252 So. 3d at 37.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 18-60338\n A.\n In instances where the State’s highest court has not spoken on the direct\nquestion, federal courts are required to make an “Erie guess and determine, in\n[their] best judgment how [the State’s highest court] would resolve the issue if\npresented with the same case”. Temple v. McCall, 720 F.3d 301, 307 (5th Cir.\n2013) (first alteration in original) (internal quotations and citation omitted).\nIn doing so, our court “defer[s] to intermediate state appellate court decisions\nunless convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state\nwould decide otherwise”. Mem’l Hermann Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. Eurocopter\nDeutschland, GMBH, 524 F.3d 676, 678 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations\nand citation omitted); but, we “need not necessarily defer to state trial court\ndecisions”, particularly when they are unpublished, Roecker v. United States,\n379 F.2d 400, 406 (5th Cir. 1967) (citing King v. Order of United Commercial\nTravelers of Am., 333 U.S. 153 (1948)).\n The Mississippi Supreme Court has not decided whether the two sections\nat issue are repugnant. And, to make our Erie guess far more difficult, neither\nhas the Mississippi Court of Appeals. Therefore, State Farm urges we consider\ntwo Mississippi circuit court decisions, each of which was rendered by a\ndifferent court.\n First, in 2009, a circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of\nState Farm in Rayner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,\nNo. 2009-36 (Rankin Cty. Cir. Ct. 9 Dec. 2009). In Rayner, the circuit court\nstated: “[S]ince . . . Plaintiffs are not legally entitled to recover against the\nDeputy/County, etc., the Court finds that no UM benefits are owed to Plaintiffs\nunder the State Farm policy”. Id.\n The accident in Rayner, however, occurred in 2008, and, because the\njudgment provides no reasoning, it is unclear whether the court applied the\nUM Act as written before or after the 2009 amendment to § 83-11-103(c)(vi)\n 6\n\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 18-60338\n(uninsured-motor-vehicle definition). And, even if the court did apply the 2009\namendment, it is unclear whether the parties raised the issue presented by\nthis action: whether §§ 83-11-101 (policy requirement) and 83-11-103(c)(vi)\n(uninsured-motor-vehicle definition) are repugnant. Moreover, the Mississippi\nSupreme Court affirmed Rayner in a per curiam affirmance, No. 2010-CA-\n00738-SCT (Miss. 21 July 2011), which, according to Mississippi Rule of\nAppellate Procedure 35-A(c), “ha[s] no precedential value”.\n Second, in 2014, the other Mississippi circuit court granted summary\njudgment in favor of State Farm, concluding: “[B]ecause the Plaintiff’s claims\nagainst [the law-enforcement officer] are barred by the police and fire\nprotection exemption to the MTCA, . . . Plaintiff is not legally entitled to recover\nUM benefits from State Farm”. Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., No.\nL12-545 (Lafayette Cty. Cir. Ct. 16 Oct. 2014). Therefore, citing Fidelity Union\nTrust Co. v. Field, 311 U.S. 169 (1940), State Farm contends the district court\nreversibly erred by not considering the order in Williams.\n It is true that, in Field, the Supreme Court held, because of the uniformity\nbetween two state-trial-court decisions interpreting the state statute in issue, the\nfederal third circuit “was not at liberty to reject these decisions merely because it\ndid not agree with their reasoning”. 311 U.S. at 179. But in 1967 in Roecker, our\ncourt distinguished Field, relying on the 1948 decision in King, 333 U.S. at 159–\n62. See Roecker, 379 F.2d at 406 (ruling, as quoted supra: “a federal court need\nnot necessarily defer to state trial court decisions”). Because Mississippi trial\ncourts are not “court[s] of statewide jurisdiction”, unlike the chancery court in\nField, we need not defer to these unpublished circuit-court decisions. Id.\n B.\n As discussed above, § 83-11-101(1) (policy requirement) limits UM coverage\nto those sums the insured “shall be legally entitled to recover as damages for bodily\ninjury or death from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle”.\n\n 7\n\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 18-60338\n(Emphases added.) It is uncontested that the fireman was acting in the course\nand scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and, therefore, pursuant\nto the MTCA’s government-employee immunity clause, § 11-46-7(2), McGlothin is\nnot “legally entitled to recover” damages from him. Moreover, because it is also\nuncontested the fireman was not acting with “reckless disregard” for McGlothin’s\nsafety or well-being, the fire department and the city are also immune, pursuant\nto the MTCA’s police-and-fire-protection immunity clause, § 11-46-9(1)(c), and\nMcGlothin is not “legally entitled to recover” damages from either entity.\nAccordingly, under § 83-11-101(1) (policy requirement), McGlothin cannot recover\nUM benefits from State Farm because she is not “legally entitled to recover” from\nthe fireman, the fire department, or the city.\n McGlothin contends, however, consistent with the district court’s ruling,\nthat the 2009 amendment expanding the definition of “uninsured motor vehicle”\nto include “[a] motor vehicle owned or operated by a person protected by immunity\nunder the [MTCA]”, § 83-11-103(c)(vi), is repugnant to § 83-11-101(1) (policy\nrequirement), because, otherwise, an insured would never be “legally entitled to\nrecover” from “a person protected by immunity under the [MTCA]”.\n “[S]tatutes on the same subject, although in apparent conflict, should if\npossible be construed in harmony with each other to give effect to each”. Tunica\nCty. v. Hampton Co. Nat. Sur., LLC, 27 So. 3d 1128, 1134 (Miss. 2009) (quoting\nMiss. Gaming Comm’n v. Imperial Palace of Miss., Inc., 751 So. 2d 1025, 1029\n(Miss. 1999)); see also Goolsby v. Blumenthal, 581 F.2d 455, 461 (5th Cir. 1978)\n(“Where the two statutes in question are capable of standing together, there is no\nirreconcilable conflict.”).\n There are scenarios in which §§ 83-11-101(1) (policy requirement) and 83-\n11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle definition) can be construed in harmony.\nFor example, consider a hypothetical using the facts of this case, but in which the\nfireman was acting in reckless disregard for McGlothin’s safety. The fire-\ndepartment vehicle would still be an “uninsured motor vehicle” because it was\n 8\n\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 18-60338\n“operated by a person protected by immunity under the [MTCA]”—the fireman.\nBut, because, in this hypothetical, the fireman was acting in “reckless disregard”\nfor McGlothin’s safety, McGlothin would be “legally entitled to recover” damages\nfrom the fire department or the city, pursuant to MTCA § 11-46-9(1)(c) (police-\nand-fire-protection immunity clause); and, therefore, McGlothin would be entitled\nto UM benefits under the statute and policy. This scenario alone defeats\nMcGlothin’s claim.\n Another example would be when a city employee (not a fireman or police\nofficer protected by the police-and-fire-protection immunity clause of the MTCA,\n§ 11-46-9(1)(c)) is driving a city vehicle in the course and scope of his employment\nand is involved in an accident caused by the city employee’s violating a traffic law.\nThe employee would have immunity pursuant to MTCA § 11-46-7(2) (government-\nemployee immunity clause), and, therefore, the vehicle would be an “uninsured\nmotor vehicle” because it was “operated by a person protected by immunity under\nthe [MTCA]”, see § 83-11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle definition). The city,\nhowever, would be liable, because of the general waiver of immunity under MTCA\n§ 11-46-5(1); and, therefore, the insured would be “legally entitled to recover” from\nthe city, resulting in the insurer’s being required to pay UM benefits. See Mixon\nv. Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 183 So. 3d 90, 94 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (ruling the\ndepartment was not immune because its employee “did not fall within [any]\nexception[ to liability], and [the employee’s] duty to adhere to applicable traffic\nregulations was in no way discretionary”).\n When pressed at oral argument here, McGlothin countered these scenarios\nrender § 83-11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle definition) meaningless,\nbecause, in them, the governmental entity’s insurance, in any event, would pay\nthe claim. However, as State Farm notes, the MTCA only waives immunity up to\n$500,000. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-15(1)(c). Therefore, for any claim in excess\nof $500,000 for which the governmental entity has waived immunity, the\ngovernmental entity’s insurance would pay up to $500,000, and then the insured’s\n 9\n\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 18-60338\nUM carrier would be liable for any remainder. See, e.g., City of Jackson v. Perry,\n764 So. 2d 373, 381–83 (Miss. 2000) (holding insurer required to pay remainder of\ndamages above statutory cap).\n That these scenarios may not occur very often does not, of course, render\nthe two sections repugnant. Furthermore, at oral argument, McGlothin’s counsel\nadmitted “repugnant” is not the word he would employ to describe the sections.\nOral Argument at 35:41–46. Instead, he stated he would describe them as\n“confusing”. Oral Argument at 35:50–55. Obviously, the two sections’ being\n“confusing” does not equate to repugnancy. Our charge, as noted, is to read them\nin harmony, if possible. As shown, it is possible to do so.\n It is true, as McGlothin contends, that the UM Act is to be “construed\nliberally to provide coverage and strictly to avoid or preclude exceptions or\nexemptions from coverage”. Miss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. Garrett, 487 So. 2d\n1320, 1323 (Miss. 1986) (citation omitted). But “[l]imiting UM coverage is not in\nissue here, . . . for there is no person from whom [plaintiff in this action is] legally\nentitled to recover damages pursuant to the UM policy or the statute; at least, not\nuntil the legislature defines the required coverage differently”. Medders v. U.S.\nFidelity & Guar. Co., 623 So. 2d 979, 988 (Miss. 1993) (citation omitted).\n Along that line, and regarding McGlothin’s contention that the 2009\namendment created an exception to the “legally entitled to recover” requirement,\n“[a]n exception must be clear from the language of the statute and cannot be\ncreated by construction”. Imperial Palace of Miss., 751 So. 2d at 1028 (citing Miss.\nDep’t of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks v. Miss. Wildlife Enf’t Officers’ Ass’n, 740 So.\n2d 925, 931 (Miss. 1999)). And, “[t]he statutory language, legally entitled to\nrecover, is ‘simply too unambiguous to admit of judicially created exception . . .’”.\nMedders, 623 So. 2d at 989 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Of course, if\nthe Mississippi legislature had wanted to exempt “motor vehicle[s] owned or\noperated by . . . person[s] protected by immunity under the [MTCA]” from the\n“legally entitled to recover” requirement, it could have easily and explicitly done\n 10\n\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n No. 18-60338\nso. See, e.g., Miss. Wildlife Enf’t Officers’ Ass’n, 740 So. 2d at 932 (quoting State\nv. Heard, 151 So. 2d 417, 420 (Miss. 1963)). But, it did not.\n The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “the clear meaning of the\nphrase legally entitled to recover found in the Mississippi UM statute limits\nthe scope of the coverage mandated by the statute to those instances in which the\ninsured would be entitled at the time of injury to recover through legal action.\nThere is no statutory mandate to provide coverage in instances where the alleged\ntortfeasor is immune from liability”. Medders, 623 So. 2d at 989 (emphasis in\noriginal) (internal citations omitted). The 2009 amendment did not create this\nstatutory mandate. In short, and pursuant to our Erie guess, McGlothin was not\nlegally entitled to recover from the fireman, the fire department, or the city, and,\ntherefore, is not legally entitled to recover UM benefits from State Farm.\n III.\n For the foregoing reasons, that part of the judgment in favor of McGlothin\nis VACATED, and judgment is RENDERED for State Farm.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Jessica C. MCGLOTHIN, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-31\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nCase: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n Fifth Circuit\\n\\n No. 18-60338 FILED\\n May 31, 2019\\n Lyle W. Cayce\\nJESSICA C. MCGLOTHIN, Clerk\\n\\n Plaintiff - Appellee\\n\\nv.\\n\\nSTATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,\\n\\n Defendant - Appellant\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Mississippi\\n USDC No.: 1:17-CV-83\\n\\n\\nBefore BARKSDALE, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.\\nRHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:\\n At issue in this diversity action is whether, as the district court\\nconcluded, two sections of Mississippi’s Uninsured Motorist (UM) Act,\\nMississippi Code §§ 83-11-101 et seq., are repugnant: §§ 83-11-101(1) (requiring\\nautomobile insurers provide UM coverage to extent insured is “legally entitled to\\nrecover”) and 83-11-103(c)(vi) (defining “uninsured motor vehicle”, as used in UM\\nAct, to include vehicle “owned or operated by a person protected by immunity\\nunder the Mississippi Tort Claims Act”). State Farm Mutual Automobile\\nInsurance Company maintains: the sections are not repugnant; and, as a\\nresult, it is not liable for UM coverage. Therefore, it challenges the district\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\ncourt’s, on cross-motions for summary judgment, denying its motion in that\\nregard and granting Jessica C. McGlothin’s. That part of the judgment in favor\\nof McGlothin is VACATED, and judgment is RENDERED for State Farm.\\n I.\\n In February 2016, a fireman with the Biloxi, Mississippi, fire department,\\nrear-ended McGlothin’s vehicle. The fireman was acting in the course and scope\\nof his employment with the fire department at the time of the accident, and was\\nnot—as McGlothin concedes—acting “in reckless disregard of [her] safety and\\nwell-being”. See, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(c) (Mississippi Tort Claims Act\\n(MTCA); police-and-fire-protection immunity clause).\\n At the time of the accident, McGlothin’s vehicle was insured under a State\\nFarm policy, which provided UM coverage. As required by the UM Act, the UM\\nprovision in the policy provides, in pertinent part: State Farm “will pay\\ncompensatory damages for bodily injury and property damage an insured is\\nlegally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle”.\\n(Emphasis omitted.)\\n Along that line, the UM Act’s definition of an “uninsured motor vehicle”\\nincludes, inter alia, “a vehicle owned or operated by a person protected by\\nimmunity under the [MTCA]”. § 83-11-103(c)(vi). Under the MTCA, employees\\nof governmental entities are personally immune from claims arising from acts\\nperformed within the course and scope of their employment. § 11-46-7(2)\\n(government-employee immunity clause). Because the fireman is protected by\\nimmunity under the MTCA, the fire-department vehicle he was driving is\\nconsidered an uninsured motor vehicle as defined by the UM Act. (As explained\\nmore fully infra, the city and fire department were also immune from suit\\npursuant to the MTCA’s police-and-fire-protection immunity clause.)\\n McGlothin filed this action in February 2017 in Mississippi state court\\nagainst the fireman, the fire department, and the City of Biloxi, claiming\\nnegligence. And, in the alternative, she included State Farm as a defendant,\\n 2\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\nseeking UM coverage in the event the other parties were entitled to sovereign\\nimmunity, pursuant to the MTCA, Mississippi Code §§ 11-46-1 et seq. State Farm\\nremoved this action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.\\n McGlothin’s claims against the fireman, the city, and the fire department\\nwere dismissed because McGlothin failed to serve them with process. (This\\ndismissal created complete diversity; and, therefore, the district court had\\njurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group,\\nL.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571–73 (2004); Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68–78\\n(1996).) Instead, McGlothin pursued her claims against the fireman, the fire\\ndepartment, and the city in state court. The state court granted defendants’\\nsummary-judgment motion, concluding: “[The fireman] was not acting with\\nreckless disregard as required for a governmental entity or governmental\\nemployee to be held liable under the [MTCA]”. McGlothin v. Mason, No. A2402-\\n17-20 (Harrison Cty. Cir. Ct. 30 Nov. 2017).\\n In this action, McGlothin and State Farm filed cross-motions for summary\\njudgment. The district court granted McGlothin’s, and partially denied State\\nFarm’s, concluding McGlothin is entitled to UM coverage, pursuant to its ruling\\nMississippi Code §§ 83-11-101(1) and 83-11-103(c)(vi) are repugnant, with the\\nlatter being the more specific, controlling section. McGlothin v. State Farm Mut.\\nIns., 297 F. Supp. 3d 635, 638 (S.D. Miss. 2018).\\n Section 83-11-101 (policy requirement) lists mandatory provisions to be\\ncontained in automobile-liability-insurance policies, including requiring\\nautomobile insurers provide UM coverage to the extent the insured is “legally\\nentitled to recover”. As discussed supra, § 83-11-103(c) (uninsured-motor-vehicle\\ndefinition) contains definitions of the term “uninsured motor vehicle” as used in\\nthe UM Act, which includes, in subpart (c)(vi), a vehicle “owned or operated by a\\nperson protected by immunity under the [MTCA]”.\\n In granting summary judgment against State Farm on the issue of UM\\ncoverage, the district court concluded: under State Farm’s proposed reading of\\n 3\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\nthe two sections, “[a]n insured would never be ‘legally entitled to recover’ damages\\nfrom a person or entity entitled to immunity under the [MTCA]”; therefore, the\\nsections are repugnant; “and the only way to carry out the Mississippi\\nLegislature’s intent in enacting Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-103(c)(vi) [(uninsured-\\nmotor-vehicle definition)] is to view it as an exception to Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-\\n101(1) [(policy requirement)]”. McGlothin, 297 F. Supp. 3d at 638.\\n As a result, the court concluded § 83-11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle\\ndefinition) was the more specific, and, therefore, controlling section, and\\nMcGlothin was entitled to UM benefits. Id. (On the other hand, the court granted\\nState Farm’s summary-judgment motion against McGlothin’s claims for extra-\\ncontractual and punitive damages based on State Farm’s denial of her UM claim.\\nId. at 639. McGlothin did not appeal that decision.)\\n II.\\n It hardly bears repeating that the “grant[] and denial[] of summary\\njudgment [is reviewed] de novo”. Century Sur. Co. v. Seidel, 893 F.3d 328, 332\\n(5th Cir. 2018) (quotations and citation omitted). Equally well-known is that\\nsummary judgment is proper “if the movant shows . . . there is no genuine\\ndispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a\\nmatter of law”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “When parties file cross-motions for\\nsummary judgment, we review each party’s motion independently, viewing the\\nevidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”\\nCooley v. Hous. Auth. of Slidell, 747 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal\\nquotations and citation omitted).\\n The facts are undisputed. We must determine whether the two\\nprovisions of Mississippi’s UM Act are repugnant. Obviously, Mississippi\\nsubstantive law applies to this diversity action. Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304\\nU.S. 64, 78–79 (1938).\\n\\n\\n\\n 4\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\n The UM Act requires all automobile-liability-insurance policies to contain\\na provision “undertaking to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally\\nentitled to recover as damages for bodily injury or death from the owner or operator\\nof an uninsured motor vehicle”. § 83-11-101(1) (policy requirement) (emphases\\nadded). Pertinent to this action, the Act was amended in 2009 to expand the\\ndefinition of “uninsured motor vehicle” to include the above-described “motor\\nvehicle owned or operated by a person protected by immunity under the [MTCA]\\n. . . if the insured has exhausted all administrative remedies under that chapter”.\\n§ 83-11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle definition).\\n The MTCA generally waives “the immunity of the state and its political\\nsubdivisions from claims for money damages arising out of the torts of such\\ngovernmental entities and the torts of their employees while acting within the\\ncourse and scope of their employment”. § 11-46-5(1). “But it exempts certain\\nclaims from that immunity waiver.” City of Clinton v. Tornes, 252 So. 3d 34, 37\\n(Miss. 2018) (citing § 11-46-9).\\n One of those exemptions is found in the MTCA’s earlier-referenced police-\\nand-fire-protection immunity clause:\\n A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course\\n and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any\\n claim . . . [a]rising out of any act or omission of an employee of a\\n governmental entity engaged in the performance or execution of\\n duties or activities relating to police or fire protection unless the\\n employee acted in reckless disregard of the safety and well-being of\\n any person not engaged in criminal activity at the time of injury[.]\\n§ 11-46-9(1)(c) (emphases added).\\n The MTCA also provides that “no employee [of a governmental entity] shall\\nbe held personally liable for acts or omissions occurring within the course and\\nscope of the employee’s duties”. § 11-46-7(2) (government-employee immunity\\nclause)(emphasis added); see also Tornes, 252 So. 3d at 37.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 5\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\n A.\\n In instances where the State’s highest court has not spoken on the direct\\nquestion, federal courts are required to make an “Erie guess and determine, in\\n[their] best judgment how [the State’s highest court] would resolve the issue if\\npresented with the same case”. Temple v. McCall, 720 F.3d 301, 307 (5th Cir.\\n2013) (first alteration in original) (internal quotations and citation omitted).\\nIn doing so, our court “defer[s] to intermediate state appellate court decisions\\nunless convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state\\nwould decide otherwise”. Mem’l Hermann Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. Eurocopter\\nDeutschland, GMBH, 524 F.3d 676, 678 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations\\nand citation omitted); but, we “need not necessarily defer to state trial court\\ndecisions”, particularly when they are unpublished, Roecker v. United States,\\n379 F.2d 400, 406 (5th Cir. 1967) (citing King v. Order of United Commercial\\nTravelers of Am., 333 U.S. 153 (1948)).\\n The Mississippi Supreme Court has not decided whether the two sections\\nat issue are repugnant. And, to make our Erie guess far more difficult, neither\\nhas the Mississippi Court of Appeals. Therefore, State Farm urges we consider\\ntwo Mississippi circuit court decisions, each of which was rendered by a\\ndifferent court.\\n First, in 2009, a circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of\\nState Farm in Rayner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,\\nNo. 2009-36 (Rankin Cty. Cir. Ct. 9 Dec. 2009). In Rayner, the circuit court\\nstated: “[S]ince . . . Plaintiffs are not legally entitled to recover against the\\nDeputy/County, etc., the Court finds that no UM benefits are owed to Plaintiffs\\nunder the State Farm policy”. Id.\\n The accident in Rayner, however, occurred in 2008, and, because the\\njudgment provides no reasoning, it is unclear whether the court applied the\\nUM Act as written before or after the 2009 amendment to § 83-11-103(c)(vi)\\n 6\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\n(uninsured-motor-vehicle definition). And, even if the court did apply the 2009\\namendment, it is unclear whether the parties raised the issue presented by\\nthis action: whether §§ 83-11-101 (policy requirement) and 83-11-103(c)(vi)\\n(uninsured-motor-vehicle definition) are repugnant. Moreover, the Mississippi\\nSupreme Court affirmed Rayner in a per curiam affirmance, No. 2010-CA-\\n00738-SCT (Miss. 21 July 2011), which, according to Mississippi Rule of\\nAppellate Procedure 35-A(c), “ha[s] no precedential value”.\\n Second, in 2014, the other Mississippi circuit court granted summary\\njudgment in favor of State Farm, concluding: “[B]ecause the Plaintiff’s claims\\nagainst [the law-enforcement officer] are barred by the police and fire\\nprotection exemption to the MTCA, . . . Plaintiff is not legally entitled to recover\\nUM benefits from State Farm”. Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., No.\\nL12-545 (Lafayette Cty. Cir. Ct. 16 Oct. 2014). Therefore, citing Fidelity Union\\nTrust Co. v. Field, 311 U.S. 169 (1940), State Farm contends the district court\\nreversibly erred by not considering the order in Williams.\\n It is true that, in Field, the Supreme Court held, because of the uniformity\\nbetween two state-trial-court decisions interpreting the state statute in issue, the\\nfederal third circuit “was not at liberty to reject these decisions merely because it\\ndid not agree with their reasoning”. 311 U.S. at 179. But in 1967 in Roecker, our\\ncourt distinguished Field, relying on the 1948 decision in King, 333 U.S. at 159–\\n62. See Roecker, 379 F.2d at 406 (ruling, as quoted supra: “a federal court need\\nnot necessarily defer to state trial court decisions”). Because Mississippi trial\\ncourts are not “court[s] of statewide jurisdiction”, unlike the chancery court in\\nField, we need not defer to these unpublished circuit-court decisions. Id.\\n B.\\n As discussed above, § 83-11-101(1) (policy requirement) limits UM coverage\\nto those sums the insured “shall be legally entitled to recover as damages for bodily\\ninjury or death from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle”.\\n\\n 7\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\n(Emphases added.) It is uncontested that the fireman was acting in the course\\nand scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and, therefore, pursuant\\nto the MTCA’s government-employee immunity clause, § 11-46-7(2), McGlothin is\\nnot “legally entitled to recover” damages from him. Moreover, because it is also\\nuncontested the fireman was not acting with “reckless disregard” for McGlothin’s\\nsafety or well-being, the fire department and the city are also immune, pursuant\\nto the MTCA’s police-and-fire-protection immunity clause, § 11-46-9(1)(c), and\\nMcGlothin is not “legally entitled to recover” damages from either entity.\\nAccordingly, under § 83-11-101(1) (policy requirement), McGlothin cannot recover\\nUM benefits from State Farm because she is not “legally entitled to recover” from\\nthe fireman, the fire department, or the city.\\n McGlothin contends, however, consistent with the district court’s ruling,\\nthat the 2009 amendment expanding the definition of “uninsured motor vehicle”\\nto include “[a] motor vehicle owned or operated by a person protected by immunity\\nunder the [MTCA]”, § 83-11-103(c)(vi), is repugnant to § 83-11-101(1) (policy\\nrequirement), because, otherwise, an insured would never be “legally entitled to\\nrecover” from “a person protected by immunity under the [MTCA]”.\\n “[S]tatutes on the same subject, although in apparent conflict, should if\\npossible be construed in harmony with each other to give effect to each”. Tunica\\nCty. v. Hampton Co. Nat. Sur., LLC, 27 So. 3d 1128, 1134 (Miss. 2009) (quoting\\nMiss. Gaming Comm’n v. Imperial Palace of Miss., Inc., 751 So. 2d 1025, 1029\\n(Miss. 1999)); see also Goolsby v. Blumenthal, 581 F.2d 455, 461 (5th Cir. 1978)\\n(“Where the two statutes in question are capable of standing together, there is no\\nirreconcilable conflict.”).\\n There are scenarios in which §§ 83-11-101(1) (policy requirement) and 83-\\n11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle definition) can be construed in harmony.\\nFor example, consider a hypothetical using the facts of this case, but in which the\\nfireman was acting in reckless disregard for McGlothin’s safety. The fire-\\ndepartment vehicle would still be an “uninsured motor vehicle” because it was\\n 8\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\n“operated by a person protected by immunity under the [MTCA]”—the fireman.\\nBut, because, in this hypothetical, the fireman was acting in “reckless disregard”\\nfor McGlothin’s safety, McGlothin would be “legally entitled to recover” damages\\nfrom the fire department or the city, pursuant to MTCA § 11-46-9(1)(c) (police-\\nand-fire-protection immunity clause); and, therefore, McGlothin would be entitled\\nto UM benefits under the statute and policy. This scenario alone defeats\\nMcGlothin’s claim.\\n Another example would be when a city employee (not a fireman or police\\nofficer protected by the police-and-fire-protection immunity clause of the MTCA,\\n§ 11-46-9(1)(c)) is driving a city vehicle in the course and scope of his employment\\nand is involved in an accident caused by the city employee’s violating a traffic law.\\nThe employee would have immunity pursuant to MTCA § 11-46-7(2) (government-\\nemployee immunity clause), and, therefore, the vehicle would be an “uninsured\\nmotor vehicle” because it was “operated by a person protected by immunity under\\nthe [MTCA]”, see § 83-11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle definition). The city,\\nhowever, would be liable, because of the general waiver of immunity under MTCA\\n§ 11-46-5(1); and, therefore, the insured would be “legally entitled to recover” from\\nthe city, resulting in the insurer’s being required to pay UM benefits. See Mixon\\nv. Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 183 So. 3d 90, 94 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (ruling the\\ndepartment was not immune because its employee “did not fall within [any]\\nexception[ to liability], and [the employee’s] duty to adhere to applicable traffic\\nregulations was in no way discretionary”).\\n When pressed at oral argument here, McGlothin countered these scenarios\\nrender § 83-11-103(c)(vi) (uninsured-motor-vehicle definition) meaningless,\\nbecause, in them, the governmental entity’s insurance, in any event, would pay\\nthe claim. However, as State Farm notes, the MTCA only waives immunity up to\\n$500,000. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-15(1)(c). Therefore, for any claim in excess\\nof $500,000 for which the governmental entity has waived immunity, the\\ngovernmental entity’s insurance would pay up to $500,000, and then the insured’s\\n 9\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\nUM carrier would be liable for any remainder. See, e.g., City of Jackson v. Perry,\\n764 So. 2d 373, 381–83 (Miss. 2000) (holding insurer required to pay remainder of\\ndamages above statutory cap).\\n That these scenarios may not occur very often does not, of course, render\\nthe two sections repugnant. Furthermore, at oral argument, McGlothin’s counsel\\nadmitted “repugnant” is not the word he would employ to describe the sections.\\nOral Argument at 35:41–46. Instead, he stated he would describe them as\\n“confusing”. Oral Argument at 35:50–55. Obviously, the two sections’ being\\n“confusing” does not equate to repugnancy. Our charge, as noted, is to read them\\nin harmony, if possible. As shown, it is possible to do so.\\n It is true, as McGlothin contends, that the UM Act is to be “construed\\nliberally to provide coverage and strictly to avoid or preclude exceptions or\\nexemptions from coverage”. Miss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. Garrett, 487 So. 2d\\n1320, 1323 (Miss. 1986) (citation omitted). But “[l]imiting UM coverage is not in\\nissue here, . . . for there is no person from whom [plaintiff in this action is] legally\\nentitled to recover damages pursuant to the UM policy or the statute; at least, not\\nuntil the legislature defines the required coverage differently”. Medders v. U.S.\\nFidelity & Guar. Co., 623 So. 2d 979, 988 (Miss. 1993) (citation omitted).\\n Along that line, and regarding McGlothin’s contention that the 2009\\namendment created an exception to the “legally entitled to recover” requirement,\\n“[a]n exception must be clear from the language of the statute and cannot be\\ncreated by construction”. Imperial Palace of Miss., 751 So. 2d at 1028 (citing Miss.\\nDep’t of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks v. Miss. Wildlife Enf’t Officers’ Ass’n, 740 So.\\n2d 925, 931 (Miss. 1999)). And, “[t]he statutory language, legally entitled to\\nrecover, is ‘simply too unambiguous to admit of judicially created exception . . .’”.\\nMedders, 623 So. 2d at 989 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Of course, if\\nthe Mississippi legislature had wanted to exempt “motor vehicle[s] owned or\\noperated by . . . person[s] protected by immunity under the [MTCA]” from the\\n“legally entitled to recover” requirement, it could have easily and explicitly done\\n 10\\n\\f Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\\n\\n\\n\\n No. 18-60338\\nso. See, e.g., Miss. Wildlife Enf’t Officers’ Ass’n, 740 So. 2d at 932 (quoting State\\nv. Heard, 151 So. 2d 417, 420 (Miss. 1963)). But, it did not.\\n The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “the clear meaning of the\\nphrase legally entitled to recover found in the Mississippi UM statute limits\\nthe scope of the coverage mandated by the statute to those instances in which the\\ninsured would be entitled at the time of injury to recover through legal action.\\nThere is no statutory mandate to provide coverage in instances where the alleged\\ntortfeasor is immune from liability”. Medders, 623 So. 2d at 989 (emphasis in\\noriginal) (internal citations omitted). The 2009 amendment did not create this\\nstatutory mandate. In short, and pursuant to our Erie guess, McGlothin was not\\nlegally entitled to recover from the fireman, the fire department, or the city, and,\\ntherefore, is not legally entitled to recover UM benefits from State Farm.\\n III.\\n For the foregoing reasons, that part of the judgment in favor of McGlothin\\nis VACATED, and judgment is RENDERED for State Farm.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 11\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2068,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4615464,"string":"4,615,464"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mason SHEPHERD, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Mason Shepherd"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-01"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3993"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Nalbandian, Merritt\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888437/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"035concurrenceinpart\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888438/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0083p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-3993\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n MASON SHEPHERD, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.\\n No. 3:17-cr-00473-1—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 1, 2019\\n\\n Before: MERRITT, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Claire R. Cahoon, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant.\\nTracey Ballard Tangeman, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for\\nAppellee.\\n\\n NALBANDIAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which KETHLEDGE, J., joined,\\nand MERRITT, J., joined in part. MERRITT, J. (pp. 10–12), delivered a separate opinion\\nconcurring in part and dissenting in part.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Mason Shepherd admitted to possessing several\\nthousand images and videos of child pornography and pleaded guilty to one count of receipt and\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 2\\n\\n\\ndistribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The district court sentenced\\nShepherd to 96 months in prison and six years of supervised release and also ordered him to pay\\n$25,000 in restitution to his victims, a $100 special assessment, and a $5,000 assessment under\\nthe Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (“JVTA”), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3014. Shepherd\\nappeals the latter assessment. Under the JVTA, courts must impose the $5,000 assessment\\nagainst non-indigent persons convicted of five classes of crimes, including crimes related to the\\nsexual exploitation of children. On appeal, Shepherd argues that he was indigent at sentencing,\\nmaking him ineligible for the JVTA assessment. We disagree and AFFIRM.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n After Shepherd pleaded guilty but before sentencing, the United States Probation Office\\nprepared a presentence report (“PSR”), which provided the court with information about\\nShepherd’s education, employment history, and finances. According to the PSR, Shepherd\\nobtained a high-school-equivalency degree in 2008 and earned certifications from a career school\\nas an emergency-medical technician and in fire safety. Shepherd then enlisted in the U.S. Navy\\nbut became injured shortly after completing basic training and was honorably discharged in\\n2009. So Shepherd entered the private sector and held two jobs before his 2017 arrest: a part-\\ntime position as a firefighter and emergency-medical technician with the Perry Township Fire\\nDepartment and a full-time position as a maintenance associate with the Allen County\\nFairgrounds, earning $9 and $11 per hour, respectively. As to Shepherd’s finances, the PSR\\nidentified an overdue bill for $439, and Shepherd self-reported $1,500 in unpaid medical\\nexpenses. His only asset was a 1996 Dodge Ram, worth about $200, placing his total net worth\\nat negative $1,739.\\n\\n At the sentencing hearing, Shepherd’s counsel asked the court to find that Shepherd was\\nindigent, which would make him ineligible for the JVTA assessment, and described Shepherd’s\\nfinancial obligations. The father of an 11-year-old son, Shepherd had been paying $350 in\\nmonthly child support before his arrest; his counsel estimated that Shepherd will owe $30,000 in\\nsupport upon his release from prison. That obligation, along with the $25,000 in court-ordered\\nrestitution, places Shepherd’s total financial liability at $55,000 when he exits prison.\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 3\\n\\n\\n And Shepherd’s counsel pointed to several factors hampering Shepherd’s ability to\\nsatisfy his financial obligations. First, Shepherd’s expected earnings from prison jobs range\\nfrom $.12 to—at most—$.40 per hour. Shepherd’s counsel cast doubt on Shepherd’s ability to\\nearn enough to settle his financial obligations once he exits prison, both because of his limited\\neducation and the fact that he must register as a sex offender. Thus, Shepherd’s counsel asked\\nthe court to not impose the JVTA assessment.\\n\\n The district court nonetheless ordered the JVTA assessment. Before sentencing ended,\\nthe judge remarked that “when I combine the defendant’s ability to earn in the future, along with\\nhis other obligations, I think it’s something that can be handled by the defendant in this case.”\\n(R. 41, Tr. at PageID #2088.) Shepherd’s counsel objected to the assessment at the close of\\nsentencing, preserving the issue for appeal.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n We first address our standard of review in this case of first impression before our court.\\nThe parties ask us to review the district court’s decision to impose the assessment for abuse of\\ndiscretion, and it is true that we ordinarily review decisions to impose criminal fines under that\\nstandard. See, e.g., United States v. Monus, 128 F.3d 376, 398 (6th Cir. 1997). But that standard\\npresupposes that the district court has discretion as to whether to impose the fine. Some statutes,\\nfor example, tell the sentencing court to impose a fine “only to the extent that such fine or\\npenalty will not impair the ability of the defendant to make restitution.” 18 U.S.C. § 3572(b).\\nBy contrast, the statute here uses mandatory language, leaving no room for discretion. Section\\n3014 states that the court “shall assess an amount of $5,000 on any non-indigent person or entity\\nconvicted.” 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a) (emphasis added). In other words, the district court has no\\nchoice but to impose the $5,000 assessment if it determines that the defendant is non-indigent.\\nAnd the opposite is also true: the district court cannot impose the assessment on an indigent\\ndefendant. Because the district court has no discretion to exercise, we cannot review for abuse of\\ndiscretion.\\n\\n Instead, we believe that the crux of this appeal presents two questions—one factual, the\\nother legal. See, e.g., Randall H. Warner, All Mixed Up about Mixed Questions, 7 J. App. Prac.\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 4\\n\\n\\n& Process 101, 132–36 (2005) (discussing application of definitions in statutes). Whether\\nShepherd is indigent under 18 U.S.C. § 3014 is a question of fact that we review under the\\nclearly erroneous standard. See United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562, 569 (6th Cir. 2008)\\n(reviewing district court’s factual findings at sentencing for clear error). To answer that\\nquestion, however, the district court first had to resolve a separate, legal question—what\\nconstitutes indigence under § 3014. We review that legal question de novo. See Weinberger v.\\nUnited States, 268 F.3d 346, 351 (6th Cir. 2001) (reviewing district court’s application of\\nSentencing Guidelines de novo).\\n\\n III.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n We begin with the legal question: whether the district court applied the correct standard\\nfor what constitutes indigence under § 3014. Shepherd acknowledges that several of our sister\\ncircuits have said that a district court may consider both the defendant’s current ability to pay\\nand the defendant’s earnings capacity to resolve the indigency question. See, e.g., United States\\nv. Graves, 908 F.3d 137, 138 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Janatsch, 722 F. App’x 806, 811\\n(10th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lail, 736 F. App’x 381, 382 (4th Cir. 2018) (per curiam);\\nUnited States v. Kelley, 861 F.3d 790, 801 (8th Cir. 2017). But Shepherd also directs us to a\\ncontrary decision, in which the district court declined to weigh the defendant’s earnings potential\\nin its indigency analysis, looking only to the defendant’s financial condition at the time of\\nsentencing. United States v. Medina, No. 15–2849, 2017 WL 3189900 (D.N.M. May 25, 2017).\\n\\n Our analysis begins with the statute’s text. Section 3014 states that a court “shall assess\\nan amount of $5,000 on any non-indigent person or entity convicted of an offense\\nunder . . . (3) chapter 110 (relating to sexual exploitation and other abuse of children).”\\n18 U.S.C. § 3014(a)(3). Congress did not define “non-indigent,” so we must give that term its\\nordinary meaning at the time of the statute’s enactment. Keeley v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 878, 882\\n(6th Cir. 2018); United States v. Grant, 636 F.3d 803, 810 (6th Cir. 2011). To determine\\nordinary meaning, we first turn to dictionaries that are “roughly contemporaneous” with the\\nstatute’s enactment. Freytag v. C.I.R., 501 U.S. 868, 920 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring); see also\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 5\\n\\n\\nUnited States v. Zabawa, 719 F.3d 555, 559 (6th Cir. 2013) (“In determining [the ordinary\\nmeaning], dictionaries are a good place to start.”). Black’s Law Dictionary defines indigent as\\n“[a] poor person,” but that does not tell us much, partly because it uses indigent as a noun while\\nthe statute uses indigent as an adjective. Indigent, Black’s Law Dictionary 891 (10th ed. 2014).\\nMore descriptive is Black’s definition of indigency, which it calls “[t]he quality, state, or\\ncondition of a person who lacks the means of subsistence; extreme hardship or neediness;\\npoverty.” Indigency, Black’s Law Dictionary 891 (10th ed. 2014). That definition suggests that\\nindigency is a more dire condition than simply living paycheck-to-paycheck: it summons the\\nthought of one who earns no paycheck at all and instead relies on others for life’s basic\\nnecessities.\\n\\n Non-legal dictionaries also compare the words indigent and indigency to poverty. See,\\ne.g., Indigent, Webster’s New World Dictionary 687 (3d ed. 1988) (“in poverty; poor; needy;\\ndestitute”). We find the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of indigency especially helpful:\\nin addition to defining that word as “penury; destitution,” the dictionary further describes\\nindigency as the “want of the means of subsistence.” Indigency, Oxford English Dictionary 868\\n(2d ed. 1989). Like Black’s definition of indigency, that definition implies that an indigent\\nperson not only lives in poverty but also lacks the means—e.g., skills or education—to exit\\npoverty. We can infer from these definitions that the district court must resolve two basic\\nquestions in assessing the defendant’s indigency: (1) Is the defendant impoverished now; and\\n(2) if so, does the defendant have the means to provide for himself so that he will not always be\\nimpoverished?\\n\\n The statute’s structure recommends the same inference. Under § 3014(g), which cross-\\nreferences 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b), the defendant’s obligation to pay the assessment does not end\\nuntil “the later of 20 years from the entry of judgment or 20 years after the release from\\nimprisonment of the person fined, or upon the death of the individual fined.” 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3613(b). Because the defendant’s obligation to pay persists for at least twenty years after his\\nsentencing, it would make little sense for the district court to consider only the defendant’s\\nfinancial condition at the time of sentencing. That snapshot in time may not accurately represent\\nthe defendant’s condition five, ten, or twenty years after sentencing. Rather, the defendant’s\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 6\\n\\n\\nemployment prospects and earnings potential are probative of his ability to pay the assessment—\\nand are fair game for the court to consider at sentencing.\\n\\n Finally, we note that each circuit that has considered this issue has agreed that the district\\ncourt may consider the defendant’s future financial condition—such as his earnings potential—\\nwhen making the indigency determination. See Graves, 908 F.3d at 141–42; Janatsch, 722 F.\\nApp’x at 811; Lail, 736 F. App’x at 382; Kelley, 861 F.3d at 802; United States v. Strange, 692\\nF. App’x 346, 349 (9th Cir. 2017). Although Shepherd acknowledges that line of decisions, he\\npoints to a district-court decision in which the court declined to look beyond the defendant’s\\npresent financial condition when applying § 3014. Medina, 2017 WL 3189900, at *2. Indeed,\\nthe court explained that it had “reviewed the cases contained in the government’s supplemental\\nbrief, but none of those cases provide authority that the Court may impose the special assessment\\nfee based on a defendant’s hypothetical future earning capacity or the fact that a defendant held\\nregular employment in the past.” Id. We find Medina unpersuasive, largely because several\\ncircuit courts, including the Tenth Circuit, have since provided the authority that the district court\\nfound absent.\\n\\n For these reasons, the district court’s decision to consider Shepherd’s earnings potential,\\nalong with his present finances, was appropriate under § 3014.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard is a separate question from\\nwhether the district court correctly concluded that Shepherd is non-indigent. Shepherd argues\\nthat the district court answered the latter question—a factual question—incorrectly. We review\\nthe district court’s factual determination for clear error, and in doing so, we may reverse only if\\nwe have the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.\\nDarwich, 337 F.3d 645, 663 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Latouf, 132 F.3d 320, 331\\n(6th Cir. 1997)).\\n\\n At the outset, we note that the fact that the district court appointed Shepherd counsel is\\nprobative but not dispositive of whether Shepherd is indigent under § 3014. The Criminal\\nJustice Act authorizes district courts to appoint counsel to defendants who are “financially\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 7\\n\\n\\nunable to obtain adequate representation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a). But “the standard of financial\\ninability is ‘something less than indigency or destitution.’” Brown v. United States, 716 F.\\nApp’x 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653, 660 (2d Cir.\\n1983)). This is a matter of common sense: a criminal defendant might be unable to pay a six-\\nfigure legal bill and yet still possess the means of subsistence. Although all indigent defendants\\nmight be financially unable to obtain adequate legal counsel, the inverse is not necessarily true.\\nThat Shepherd has court-appointed counsel is not sufficient to support a finding of indigency.1\\n\\n Shepherd points to his limited education and low earnings potential as signs of his\\nindigency. According to Shepherd, the fact that he has only a GED and vocational training\\n“limit[s] his reasonable future earning potential.” (Appellant Br. at 10.) In one sense, that may\\nbe true. That Shepherd does not have a degree in engineering or computer science, for example,\\nmay limit his future earnings. But as the government responds, one-third of working Americans\\ncan claim a high-school diploma as their highest educational credential. Shepherd, by contrast,\\nhas a high school diploma plus additional training as an emergency-medical technician—\\nevidence that, if anything, he is not indigent.\\n\\n Shepherd also notes that he will have to register as a sex offender upon his release from\\nprison, which he claims will also limit his earnings potential. That fact may also be objectively\\ntrue, but it does not compel the district court to find him indigent. To the contrary, Shepherd’s\\nargument conflicts with the statute, which contemplates assessing sex offenders. Section 3014,\\nwhich Congress titled the “Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015,” applies to defendants\\nwhose convictions fall under five chapters of the criminal code. Two of those chapters, 109A\\nand 110, relate to sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of minors, respectively—crimes for\\nwhich the defendant, like Shepherd, may have to register as a sex offender. 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3014(a)(2)–(3). Thus, Shepherd cannot use his sex-offender status to shield him from paying\\nthe assessment.\\n\\n The closer question is whether Shepherd’s financial obligations—$25,000 in restitution\\nand as much as $30,000 in child support—render him indigent. Although Shepherd had been\\n\\n 1We also note that the district court’s exercise of discretion to waive Shepherd’s criminal fines—for\\nreasons the district court did not state on the record—does not change our analysis.\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 8\\n\\n\\ncurrent on his child support payments before he was incarcerated, his hourly wage will decline\\nsignificantly while he is in prison and yet his $350 monthly support payment may not.2 And\\nShepherd’s responsibility to pay $25,000 in restitution will begin the day he exits prison. All\\ntold, Shepherd will owe as much as $55,000 upon his release from prison, calling into question\\nhis ability to pay that sum plus the $5,000 assessment.\\n\\n To be sure, these are nontrivial obligations, especially for someone with a negative net\\nworth at sentencing. But time is on Shepherd’s side. Shepherd was 29 years old at sentencing,\\nmeaning that if he serves his full, 96-month sentence, he will leave prison well before he turns\\n40 and with many years of future employability. And Shepherd has 20 years after his release\\nfrom prison to pay the assessment. By budgeting, Shepherd need only save $250 each year or\\nunder $5 per week to stay on pace. As the judge remarked at sentencing, “when I combine the\\ndefendant’s ability to earn in the future, along with his other obligations, I think it’s something\\nthat can be handled by the defendant in this case.” (R. 41, Tr. at PageID #2088.) We agree.\\nThe district court made no error in its factual determination.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n As a last resort, Shepherd argues that the district court erred by failing to make an explicit\\nfinding of his non-indigency. But the statute requires no such finding, and in general, district\\ncourts “retain considerable latitude in deciding which arguments to discuss and how much\\nexplanation is necessary.” United States v. Mitchell, 295 F. App’x 799, 804 (6th Cir. 2008).\\nIndeed, the court has “done its duty” if the “‘record makes clear that the sentencing judge\\nlistened to each argument,’ ‘considered the supporting evidence,’ was ‘fully aware’ of the\\ndefendant’s circumstances and ‘took them into account’ in sentencing him.” Id. (quoting Rita v.\\nUnited States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007)). While the district court did not expressly state that\\nShepherd is “non-indigent,” it concluded as much when it imposed the $5,000 assessment after\\nhearing argument from both sides about Shepherd’s finances, education, and employment\\nhistory. And the district court justified that decision, in part, by noting Shepherd’s “ability to\\nearn in the future.” (Id.) Still more, the district court’s finding was specific enough to prompt an\\n\\n 2Shepherd’s counsel acknowledged the possibility that Shepherd’s monthly payment could decrease while\\nhe is in prison.\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 9\\n\\n\\nobjection to the assessment from Shepherd’s counsel, thus preserving this issue for appeal. As a\\nresult, Shepherd’s argument is unavailing.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment imposing the $5,000 JVTA\\nassessment.\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 10\\n\\n\\n ________________________________________________________\\n\\n CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART\\n ________________________________________________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4392717/\", \"author_raw\": \"NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge\"}, {\"author\": \"MERRITT, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"MERRITT, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree that in\\ndetermining indigency under 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a), District Courts should examine future earning\\npotential alongside present ability to pay. But nowhere does the majority say whose burden it is\\nto show the fact of indigency or non-indigency. It is defendant’s.\\n\\n The statute specifies that a mandatory $5,000 special assessment on non-indigent\\ndefendants shall be collected in the same manner as a criminal fine. 18 U.S.C. § 3014(f). The\\nburden is usually on a defendant to establish that he is unable to pay a criminal fine. See\\ngenerally United States v. Martin, 83 F. App’x 83, 84 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The defendant bears\\nthe burden of establishing his present and future inability to pay all or part of a fine.”); U.S.S.G.\\n§ 5E1.2(a). Other courts have said the defendant’s burden of proof in the criminal fine context\\napplies to the special assessment in 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a). See, e.g., United States v. Streaty,\\n735 F. App’x 140, 140 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (“This court has yet to articulate a test for\\ndetermining whether a defendant is indigent for purposes of § 3014. As such, this court applies\\nthe standard that otherwise applies to fines assessed in criminal cases.”); United States v. Lail,\\n736 F. App’x 381, 382 (4th Cir. 2018) (per curiam).\\n\\n As the majority states, we review decisions to impose criminal fines under an abuse of\\ndiscretion standard; here there is no discretion to exercise because the special assessment is\\nmandatory. I agree that the determination of indigency under § 3014 is a question of fact we\\nshould review for clear error. So the question in this case is whether the District Court clearly\\nerred in determining that the defendant did not meet his burden to show he could not pay. It\\nerred because he has carried that burden. If the defendant had negative $1,739 to his name\\nbefore entering prison, it is unclear to me how 96 months in jail, 72 months of supervised\\nrelease, and a sex offender designation will enhance his ability to pay down these fines. It was\\nclear error to assume that a man with a $200 car and $1,939 in unpaid bills can “handle” a\\n$5,000 penalty because he is not yet old. Why add another $5,000 onto a ledger that will likely\\nnever be satisfied?\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 11\\n\\n\\n Predicting a defendant’s financial prospects after prison is inherently guesswork.\\nBecause this defendant is young, it is reasonable to assume he will work upon release. If we\\nassume that the defendant will find paid work, generate capital, or win the lottery at some point\\nduring his post-incarceration life, then why should he avoid paying the $5,000 assessment\\nmandated by Congress? But we can make a different series of assumptions. For example, that a\\nlong prison sentence will diminish this offender’s employability. Or that prison, rather than\\nrehabilitating, will stigmatize him and lower his earning capacity upon release. The latter series\\nof assumptions is grounded in fact whereas the former is grounded in speculation. He has no\\nmoney now. Assuming he will have money later is not supported by anything in the record.\\n\\n Other defendants were found non-indigent under this statute because they had assets. In\\nKelley, the defendant was an Eagle Scout with a college degree. United States v. Kelley,\\n861 F.3d 790, 802 (8th Cir. 2017). In Lail, the defendant was expected to have a total net worth\\nof $74,500 after selling his residence. 736 F. App’x at 382. And in Graves, the defendant\\npossessed a GED, some college education, had a wide range of vocational skills, a long history\\nof employment, and had previously earned $40,000 per year. United States v. Graves, 908 F.3d\\n137, 143 (5th Cir. 2018). The defendant in this case has emergency medical technician training:\\nbut who would trust a sex offender in an ambulance? Comparing these defendants and\\nexamining the Presentence Report’s recitation of the defendant’s assets (or lack thereof), I am\\ncompelled to conclude that Shepherd is indigent. Because the assumption that Shepherd will\\nhave greater financial capacity after prison is not grounded in fact, the District Court clearly\\nerred in finding that Shepherd has not carried his burden to show he is indigent. I am “left with\\nthe definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d\\n562, 569 (6th Cir. 2008).\\n\\n I also disagree with the majority as to whether the District Court made a finding on\\nindigency. The majority states: “While the district court did not expressly state that Shepherd is\\n‘non-indigent,’ it concluded as much when it imposed the $5,000 assessment after hearing\\nargument from both sides about Shepherd’s finances, education, and employment history.” This\\nsentence is confusing because it effectively says that the District Court did not make a finding on\\nindigency—but then says that it did. This confusion arises because the District Court simply\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 12\\n\\n\\nordered that the $5,000 penalty be assessed, but did not explicitly state whether the defendant\\nwas indigent or not. [R.41, Page ID 2088]. Because the $5,000 may only be assessed upon a\\n“non-indigent person,” the majority assumes that by applying the assessment, the District Court\\nwas necessarily finding that the defendant was such a “non-indigent” person. But that is not\\nwhat the District Court said. It said only that it was ordering the assessment and that defendant\\ncould “handle[]” the restitution order. [R.41, Page ID 2088]. This was insufficient.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4392717/\", \"author_raw\": \"MERRITT, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"NALBANDIAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MERRITT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"NALBANDIAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4615464/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mason SHEPHERD, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-01\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0083p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n > No. 18-3993\n v. │\n │\n │\n MASON SHEPHERD, │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.\n No. 3:17-cr-00473-1—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: May 1, 2019\n\n Before: MERRITT, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: Claire R. Cahoon, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant.\nTracey Ballard Tangeman, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for\nAppellee.\n\n NALBANDIAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which KETHLEDGE, J., joined,\nand MERRITT, J., joined in part. MERRITT, J. (pp. 10–12), delivered a separate opinion\nconcurring in part and dissenting in part.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Mason Shepherd admitted to possessing several\nthousand images and videos of child pornography and pleaded guilty to one count of receipt and\n\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 2\n\n\ndistribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The district court sentenced\nShepherd to 96 months in prison and six years of supervised release and also ordered him to pay\n$25,000 in restitution to his victims, a $100 special assessment, and a $5,000 assessment under\nthe Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (“JVTA”), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3014. Shepherd\nappeals the latter assessment. Under the JVTA, courts must impose the $5,000 assessment\nagainst non-indigent persons convicted of five classes of crimes, including crimes related to the\nsexual exploitation of children. On appeal, Shepherd argues that he was indigent at sentencing,\nmaking him ineligible for the JVTA assessment. We disagree and AFFIRM.\n\n I.\n\n After Shepherd pleaded guilty but before sentencing, the United States Probation Office\nprepared a presentence report (“PSR”), which provided the court with information about\nShepherd’s education, employment history, and finances. According to the PSR, Shepherd\nobtained a high-school-equivalency degree in 2008 and earned certifications from a career school\nas an emergency-medical technician and in fire safety. Shepherd then enlisted in the U.S. Navy\nbut became injured shortly after completing basic training and was honorably discharged in\n2009. So Shepherd entered the private sector and held two jobs before his 2017 arrest: a part-\ntime position as a firefighter and emergency-medical technician with the Perry Township Fire\nDepartment and a full-time position as a maintenance associate with the Allen County\nFairgrounds, earning $9 and $11 per hour, respectively. As to Shepherd’s finances, the PSR\nidentified an overdue bill for $439, and Shepherd self-reported $1,500 in unpaid medical\nexpenses. His only asset was a 1996 Dodge Ram, worth about $200, placing his total net worth\nat negative $1,739.\n\n At the sentencing hearing, Shepherd’s counsel asked the court to find that Shepherd was\nindigent, which would make him ineligible for the JVTA assessment, and described Shepherd’s\nfinancial obligations. The father of an 11-year-old son, Shepherd had been paying $350 in\nmonthly child support before his arrest; his counsel estimated that Shepherd will owe $30,000 in\nsupport upon his release from prison. That obligation, along with the $25,000 in court-ordered\nrestitution, places Shepherd’s total financial liability at $55,000 when he exits prison.\n\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 3\n\n\n And Shepherd’s counsel pointed to several factors hampering Shepherd’s ability to\nsatisfy his financial obligations. First, Shepherd’s expected earnings from prison jobs range\nfrom $.12 to—at most—$.40 per hour. Shepherd’s counsel cast doubt on Shepherd’s ability to\nearn enough to settle his financial obligations once he exits prison, both because of his limited\neducation and the fact that he must register as a sex offender. Thus, Shepherd’s counsel asked\nthe court to not impose the JVTA assessment.\n\n The district court nonetheless ordered the JVTA assessment. Before sentencing ended,\nthe judge remarked that “when I combine the defendant’s ability to earn in the future, along with\nhis other obligations, I think it’s something that can be handled by the defendant in this case.”\n(R. 41, Tr. at PageID #2088.) Shepherd’s counsel objected to the assessment at the close of\nsentencing, preserving the issue for appeal.\n\n II.\n\n We first address our standard of review in this case of first impression before our court.\nThe parties ask us to review the district court’s decision to impose the assessment for abuse of\ndiscretion, and it is true that we ordinarily review decisions to impose criminal fines under that\nstandard. See, e.g., United States v. Monus, 128 F.3d 376, 398 (6th Cir. 1997). But that standard\npresupposes that the district court has discretion as to whether to impose the fine. Some statutes,\nfor example, tell the sentencing court to impose a fine “only to the extent that such fine or\npenalty will not impair the ability of the defendant to make restitution.” 18 U.S.C. § 3572(b).\nBy contrast, the statute here uses mandatory language, leaving no room for discretion. Section\n3014 states that the court “shall assess an amount of $5,000 on any non-indigent person or entity\nconvicted.” 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a) (emphasis added). In other words, the district court has no\nchoice but to impose the $5,000 assessment if it determines that the defendant is non-indigent.\nAnd the opposite is also true: the district court cannot impose the assessment on an indigent\ndefendant. Because the district court has no discretion to exercise, we cannot review for abuse of\ndiscretion.\n\n Instead, we believe that the crux of this appeal presents two questions—one factual, the\nother legal. See, e.g., Randall H. Warner, All Mixed Up about Mixed Questions, 7 J. App. Prac.\n\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 4\n\n\n& Process 101, 132–36 (2005) (discussing application of definitions in statutes). Whether\nShepherd is indigent under 18 U.S.C. § 3014 is a question of fact that we review under the\nclearly erroneous standard. See United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562, 569 (6th Cir. 2008)\n(reviewing district court’s factual findings at sentencing for clear error). To answer that\nquestion, however, the district court first had to resolve a separate, legal question—what\nconstitutes indigence under § 3014. We review that legal question de novo. See Weinberger v.\nUnited States, 268 F.3d 346, 351 (6th Cir. 2001) (reviewing district court’s application of\nSentencing Guidelines de novo).\n\n III.\n\n A.\n\n We begin with the legal question: whether the district court applied the correct standard\nfor what constitutes indigence under § 3014. Shepherd acknowledges that several of our sister\ncircuits have said that a district court may consider both the defendant’s current ability to pay\nand the defendant’s earnings capacity to resolve the indigency question. See, e.g., United States\nv. Graves, 908 F.3d 137, 138 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Janatsch, 722 F. App’x 806, 811\n(10th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lail, 736 F. App’x 381, 382 (4th Cir. 2018) (per curiam);\nUnited States v. Kelley, 861 F.3d 790, 801 (8th Cir. 2017). But Shepherd also directs us to a\ncontrary decision, in which the district court declined to weigh the defendant’s earnings potential\nin its indigency analysis, looking only to the defendant’s financial condition at the time of\nsentencing. United States v. Medina, No. 15–2849, 2017 WL 3189900 (D.N.M. May 25, 2017).\n\n Our analysis begins with the statute’s text. Section 3014 states that a court “shall assess\nan amount of $5,000 on any non-indigent person or entity convicted of an offense\nunder . . . (3) chapter 110 (relating to sexual exploitation and other abuse of children).”\n18 U.S.C. § 3014(a)(3). Congress did not define “non-indigent,” so we must give that term its\nordinary meaning at the time of the statute’s enactment. Keeley v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 878, 882\n(6th Cir. 2018); United States v. Grant, 636 F.3d 803, 810 (6th Cir. 2011). To determine\nordinary meaning, we first turn to dictionaries that are “roughly contemporaneous” with the\nstatute’s enactment. Freytag v. C.I.R., 501 U.S. 868, 920 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring); see also\n\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 5\n\n\nUnited States v. Zabawa, 719 F.3d 555, 559 (6th Cir. 2013) (“In determining [the ordinary\nmeaning], dictionaries are a good place to start.”). Black’s Law Dictionary defines indigent as\n“[a] poor person,” but that does not tell us much, partly because it uses indigent as a noun while\nthe statute uses indigent as an adjective. Indigent, Black’s Law Dictionary 891 (10th ed. 2014).\nMore descriptive is Black’s definition of indigency, which it calls “[t]he quality, state, or\ncondition of a person who lacks the means of subsistence; extreme hardship or neediness;\npoverty.” Indigency, Black’s Law Dictionary 891 (10th ed. 2014). That definition suggests that\nindigency is a more dire condition than simply living paycheck-to-paycheck: it summons the\nthought of one who earns no paycheck at all and instead relies on others for life’s basic\nnecessities.\n\n Non-legal dictionaries also compare the words indigent and indigency to poverty. See,\ne.g., Indigent, Webster’s New World Dictionary 687 (3d ed. 1988) (“in poverty; poor; needy;\ndestitute”). We find the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of indigency especially helpful:\nin addition to defining that word as “penury; destitution,” the dictionary further describes\nindigency as the “want of the means of subsistence.” Indigency, Oxford English Dictionary 868\n(2d ed. 1989). Like Black’s definition of indigency, that definition implies that an indigent\nperson not only lives in poverty but also lacks the means—e.g., skills or education—to exit\npoverty. We can infer from these definitions that the district court must resolve two basic\nquestions in assessing the defendant’s indigency: (1) Is the defendant impoverished now; and\n(2) if so, does the defendant have the means to provide for himself so that he will not always be\nimpoverished?\n\n The statute’s structure recommends the same inference. Under § 3014(g), which cross-\nreferences 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b), the defendant’s obligation to pay the assessment does not end\nuntil “the later of 20 years from the entry of judgment or 20 years after the release from\nimprisonment of the person fined, or upon the death of the individual fined.” 18 U.S.C.\n§ 3613(b). Because the defendant’s obligation to pay persists for at least twenty years after his\nsentencing, it would make little sense for the district court to consider only the defendant’s\nfinancial condition at the time of sentencing. That snapshot in time may not accurately represent\nthe defendant’s condition five, ten, or twenty years after sentencing. Rather, the defendant’s\n\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 6\n\n\nemployment prospects and earnings potential are probative of his ability to pay the assessment—\nand are fair game for the court to consider at sentencing.\n\n Finally, we note that each circuit that has considered this issue has agreed that the district\ncourt may consider the defendant’s future financial condition—such as his earnings potential—\nwhen making the indigency determination. See Graves, 908 F.3d at 141–42; Janatsch, 722 F.\nApp’x at 811; Lail, 736 F. App’x at 382; Kelley, 861 F.3d at 802; United States v. Strange, 692\nF. App’x 346, 349 (9th Cir. 2017). Although Shepherd acknowledges that line of decisions, he\npoints to a district-court decision in which the court declined to look beyond the defendant’s\npresent financial condition when applying § 3014. Medina, 2017 WL 3189900, at *2. Indeed,\nthe court explained that it had “reviewed the cases contained in the government’s supplemental\nbrief, but none of those cases provide authority that the Court may impose the special assessment\nfee based on a defendant’s hypothetical future earning capacity or the fact that a defendant held\nregular employment in the past.” Id. We find Medina unpersuasive, largely because several\ncircuit courts, including the Tenth Circuit, have since provided the authority that the district court\nfound absent.\n\n For these reasons, the district court’s decision to consider Shepherd’s earnings potential,\nalong with his present finances, was appropriate under § 3014.\n\n B.\n\n Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard is a separate question from\nwhether the district court correctly concluded that Shepherd is non-indigent. Shepherd argues\nthat the district court answered the latter question—a factual question—incorrectly. We review\nthe district court’s factual determination for clear error, and in doing so, we may reverse only if\nwe have the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.\nDarwich, 337 F.3d 645, 663 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Latouf, 132 F.3d 320, 331\n(6th Cir. 1997)).\n\n At the outset, we note that the fact that the district court appointed Shepherd counsel is\nprobative but not dispositive of whether Shepherd is indigent under § 3014. The Criminal\nJustice Act authorizes district courts to appoint counsel to defendants who are “financially\n\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 7\n\n\nunable to obtain adequate representation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a). But “the standard of financial\ninability is ‘something less than indigency or destitution.’” Brown v. United States, 716 F.\nApp’x 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653, 660 (2d Cir.\n1983)). This is a matter of common sense: a criminal defendant might be unable to pay a six-\nfigure legal bill and yet still possess the means of subsistence. Although all indigent defendants\nmight be financially unable to obtain adequate legal counsel, the inverse is not necessarily true.\nThat Shepherd has court-appointed counsel is not sufficient to support a finding of indigency.1\n\n Shepherd points to his limited education and low earnings potential as signs of his\nindigency. According to Shepherd, the fact that he has only a GED and vocational training\n“limit[s] his reasonable future earning potential.” (Appellant Br. at 10.) In one sense, that may\nbe true. That Shepherd does not have a degree in engineering or computer science, for example,\nmay limit his future earnings. But as the government responds, one-third of working Americans\ncan claim a high-school diploma as their highest educational credential. Shepherd, by contrast,\nhas a high school diploma plus additional training as an emergency-medical technician—\nevidence that, if anything, he is not indigent.\n\n Shepherd also notes that he will have to register as a sex offender upon his release from\nprison, which he claims will also limit his earnings potential. That fact may also be objectively\ntrue, but it does not compel the district court to find him indigent. To the contrary, Shepherd’s\nargument conflicts with the statute, which contemplates assessing sex offenders. Section 3014,\nwhich Congress titled the “Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015,” applies to defendants\nwhose convictions fall under five chapters of the criminal code. Two of those chapters, 109A\nand 110, relate to sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of minors, respectively—crimes for\nwhich the defendant, like Shepherd, may have to register as a sex offender. 18 U.S.C.\n§ 3014(a)(2)–(3). Thus, Shepherd cannot use his sex-offender status to shield him from paying\nthe assessment.\n\n The closer question is whether Shepherd’s financial obligations—$25,000 in restitution\nand as much as $30,000 in child support—render him indigent. Although Shepherd had been\n\n 1We also note that the district court’s exercise of discretion to waive Shepherd’s criminal fines—for\nreasons the district court did not state on the record—does not change our analysis.\n\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 8\n\n\ncurrent on his child support payments before he was incarcerated, his hourly wage will decline\nsignificantly while he is in prison and yet his $350 monthly support payment may not.2 And\nShepherd’s responsibility to pay $25,000 in restitution will begin the day he exits prison. All\ntold, Shepherd will owe as much as $55,000 upon his release from prison, calling into question\nhis ability to pay that sum plus the $5,000 assessment.\n\n To be sure, these are nontrivial obligations, especially for someone with a negative net\nworth at sentencing. But time is on Shepherd’s side. Shepherd was 29 years old at sentencing,\nmeaning that if he serves his full, 96-month sentence, he will leave prison well before he turns\n40 and with many years of future employability. And Shepherd has 20 years after his release\nfrom prison to pay the assessment. By budgeting, Shepherd need only save $250 each year or\nunder $5 per week to stay on pace. As the judge remarked at sentencing, “when I combine the\ndefendant’s ability to earn in the future, along with his other obligations, I think it’s something\nthat can be handled by the defendant in this case.” (R. 41, Tr. at PageID #2088.) We agree.\nThe district court made no error in its factual determination.\n\n C.\n\n As a last resort, Shepherd argues that the district court erred by failing to make an explicit\nfinding of his non-indigency. But the statute requires no such finding, and in general, district\ncourts “retain considerable latitude in deciding which arguments to discuss and how much\nexplanation is necessary.” United States v. Mitchell, 295 F. App’x 799, 804 (6th Cir. 2008).\nIndeed, the court has “done its duty” if the “‘record makes clear that the sentencing judge\nlistened to each argument,’ ‘considered the supporting evidence,’ was ‘fully aware’ of the\ndefendant’s circumstances and ‘took them into account’ in sentencing him.” Id. (quoting Rita v.\nUnited States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007)). While the district court did not expressly state that\nShepherd is “non-indigent,” it concluded as much when it imposed the $5,000 assessment after\nhearing argument from both sides about Shepherd’s finances, education, and employment\nhistory. And the district court justified that decision, in part, by noting Shepherd’s “ability to\nearn in the future.” (Id.) Still more, the district court’s finding was specific enough to prompt an\n\n 2Shepherd’s counsel acknowledged the possibility that Shepherd’s monthly payment could decrease while\nhe is in prison.\n\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 9\n\n\nobjection to the assessment from Shepherd’s counsel, thus preserving this issue for appeal. As a\nresult, Shepherd’s argument is unavailing.\n\n IV.\n\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment imposing the $5,000 JVTA\nassessment.\n\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 10\n\n\n ________________________________________________________\n\n CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART\n ________________________________________________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mason SHEPHERD, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-01\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0083p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-3993\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n MASON SHEPHERD, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.\\n No. 3:17-cr-00473-1—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 1, 2019\\n\\n Before: MERRITT, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Claire R. Cahoon, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant.\\nTracey Ballard Tangeman, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for\\nAppellee.\\n\\n NALBANDIAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which KETHLEDGE, J., joined,\\nand MERRITT, J., joined in part. MERRITT, J. (pp. 10–12), delivered a separate opinion\\nconcurring in part and dissenting in part.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Mason Shepherd admitted to possessing several\\nthousand images and videos of child pornography and pleaded guilty to one count of receipt and\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 2\\n\\n\\ndistribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The district court sentenced\\nShepherd to 96 months in prison and six years of supervised release and also ordered him to pay\\n$25,000 in restitution to his victims, a $100 special assessment, and a $5,000 assessment under\\nthe Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (“JVTA”), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3014. Shepherd\\nappeals the latter assessment. Under the JVTA, courts must impose the $5,000 assessment\\nagainst non-indigent persons convicted of five classes of crimes, including crimes related to the\\nsexual exploitation of children. On appeal, Shepherd argues that he was indigent at sentencing,\\nmaking him ineligible for the JVTA assessment. We disagree and AFFIRM.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n After Shepherd pleaded guilty but before sentencing, the United States Probation Office\\nprepared a presentence report (“PSR”), which provided the court with information about\\nShepherd’s education, employment history, and finances. According to the PSR, Shepherd\\nobtained a high-school-equivalency degree in 2008 and earned certifications from a career school\\nas an emergency-medical technician and in fire safety. Shepherd then enlisted in the U.S. Navy\\nbut became injured shortly after completing basic training and was honorably discharged in\\n2009. So Shepherd entered the private sector and held two jobs before his 2017 arrest: a part-\\ntime position as a firefighter and emergency-medical technician with the Perry Township Fire\\nDepartment and a full-time position as a maintenance associate with the Allen County\\nFairgrounds, earning $9 and $11 per hour, respectively. As to Shepherd’s finances, the PSR\\nidentified an overdue bill for $439, and Shepherd self-reported $1,500 in unpaid medical\\nexpenses. His only asset was a 1996 Dodge Ram, worth about $200, placing his total net worth\\nat negative $1,739.\\n\\n At the sentencing hearing, Shepherd’s counsel asked the court to find that Shepherd was\\nindigent, which would make him ineligible for the JVTA assessment, and described Shepherd’s\\nfinancial obligations. The father of an 11-year-old son, Shepherd had been paying $350 in\\nmonthly child support before his arrest; his counsel estimated that Shepherd will owe $30,000 in\\nsupport upon his release from prison. That obligation, along with the $25,000 in court-ordered\\nrestitution, places Shepherd’s total financial liability at $55,000 when he exits prison.\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 3\\n\\n\\n And Shepherd’s counsel pointed to several factors hampering Shepherd’s ability to\\nsatisfy his financial obligations. First, Shepherd’s expected earnings from prison jobs range\\nfrom $.12 to—at most—$.40 per hour. Shepherd’s counsel cast doubt on Shepherd’s ability to\\nearn enough to settle his financial obligations once he exits prison, both because of his limited\\neducation and the fact that he must register as a sex offender. Thus, Shepherd’s counsel asked\\nthe court to not impose the JVTA assessment.\\n\\n The district court nonetheless ordered the JVTA assessment. Before sentencing ended,\\nthe judge remarked that “when I combine the defendant’s ability to earn in the future, along with\\nhis other obligations, I think it’s something that can be handled by the defendant in this case.”\\n(R. 41, Tr. at PageID #2088.) Shepherd’s counsel objected to the assessment at the close of\\nsentencing, preserving the issue for appeal.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n We first address our standard of review in this case of first impression before our court.\\nThe parties ask us to review the district court’s decision to impose the assessment for abuse of\\ndiscretion, and it is true that we ordinarily review decisions to impose criminal fines under that\\nstandard. See, e.g., United States v. Monus, 128 F.3d 376, 398 (6th Cir. 1997). But that standard\\npresupposes that the district court has discretion as to whether to impose the fine. Some statutes,\\nfor example, tell the sentencing court to impose a fine “only to the extent that such fine or\\npenalty will not impair the ability of the defendant to make restitution.” 18 U.S.C. § 3572(b).\\nBy contrast, the statute here uses mandatory language, leaving no room for discretion. Section\\n3014 states that the court “shall assess an amount of $5,000 on any non-indigent person or entity\\nconvicted.” 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a) (emphasis added). In other words, the district court has no\\nchoice but to impose the $5,000 assessment if it determines that the defendant is non-indigent.\\nAnd the opposite is also true: the district court cannot impose the assessment on an indigent\\ndefendant. Because the district court has no discretion to exercise, we cannot review for abuse of\\ndiscretion.\\n\\n Instead, we believe that the crux of this appeal presents two questions—one factual, the\\nother legal. See, e.g., Randall H. Warner, All Mixed Up about Mixed Questions, 7 J. App. Prac.\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 4\\n\\n\\n& Process 101, 132–36 (2005) (discussing application of definitions in statutes). Whether\\nShepherd is indigent under 18 U.S.C. § 3014 is a question of fact that we review under the\\nclearly erroneous standard. See United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562, 569 (6th Cir. 2008)\\n(reviewing district court’s factual findings at sentencing for clear error). To answer that\\nquestion, however, the district court first had to resolve a separate, legal question—what\\nconstitutes indigence under § 3014. We review that legal question de novo. See Weinberger v.\\nUnited States, 268 F.3d 346, 351 (6th Cir. 2001) (reviewing district court’s application of\\nSentencing Guidelines de novo).\\n\\n III.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n We begin with the legal question: whether the district court applied the correct standard\\nfor what constitutes indigence under § 3014. Shepherd acknowledges that several of our sister\\ncircuits have said that a district court may consider both the defendant’s current ability to pay\\nand the defendant’s earnings capacity to resolve the indigency question. See, e.g., United States\\nv. Graves, 908 F.3d 137, 138 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Janatsch, 722 F. App’x 806, 811\\n(10th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lail, 736 F. App’x 381, 382 (4th Cir. 2018) (per curiam);\\nUnited States v. Kelley, 861 F.3d 790, 801 (8th Cir. 2017). But Shepherd also directs us to a\\ncontrary decision, in which the district court declined to weigh the defendant’s earnings potential\\nin its indigency analysis, looking only to the defendant’s financial condition at the time of\\nsentencing. United States v. Medina, No. 15–2849, 2017 WL 3189900 (D.N.M. May 25, 2017).\\n\\n Our analysis begins with the statute’s text. Section 3014 states that a court “shall assess\\nan amount of $5,000 on any non-indigent person or entity convicted of an offense\\nunder . . . (3) chapter 110 (relating to sexual exploitation and other abuse of children).”\\n18 U.S.C. § 3014(a)(3). Congress did not define “non-indigent,” so we must give that term its\\nordinary meaning at the time of the statute’s enactment. Keeley v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 878, 882\\n(6th Cir. 2018); United States v. Grant, 636 F.3d 803, 810 (6th Cir. 2011). To determine\\nordinary meaning, we first turn to dictionaries that are “roughly contemporaneous” with the\\nstatute’s enactment. Freytag v. C.I.R., 501 U.S. 868, 920 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring); see also\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 5\\n\\n\\nUnited States v. Zabawa, 719 F.3d 555, 559 (6th Cir. 2013) (“In determining [the ordinary\\nmeaning], dictionaries are a good place to start.”). Black’s Law Dictionary defines indigent as\\n“[a] poor person,” but that does not tell us much, partly because it uses indigent as a noun while\\nthe statute uses indigent as an adjective. Indigent, Black’s Law Dictionary 891 (10th ed. 2014).\\nMore descriptive is Black’s definition of indigency, which it calls “[t]he quality, state, or\\ncondition of a person who lacks the means of subsistence; extreme hardship or neediness;\\npoverty.” Indigency, Black’s Law Dictionary 891 (10th ed. 2014). That definition suggests that\\nindigency is a more dire condition than simply living paycheck-to-paycheck: it summons the\\nthought of one who earns no paycheck at all and instead relies on others for life’s basic\\nnecessities.\\n\\n Non-legal dictionaries also compare the words indigent and indigency to poverty. See,\\ne.g., Indigent, Webster’s New World Dictionary 687 (3d ed. 1988) (“in poverty; poor; needy;\\ndestitute”). We find the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of indigency especially helpful:\\nin addition to defining that word as “penury; destitution,” the dictionary further describes\\nindigency as the “want of the means of subsistence.” Indigency, Oxford English Dictionary 868\\n(2d ed. 1989). Like Black’s definition of indigency, that definition implies that an indigent\\nperson not only lives in poverty but also lacks the means—e.g., skills or education—to exit\\npoverty. We can infer from these definitions that the district court must resolve two basic\\nquestions in assessing the defendant’s indigency: (1) Is the defendant impoverished now; and\\n(2) if so, does the defendant have the means to provide for himself so that he will not always be\\nimpoverished?\\n\\n The statute’s structure recommends the same inference. Under § 3014(g), which cross-\\nreferences 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b), the defendant’s obligation to pay the assessment does not end\\nuntil “the later of 20 years from the entry of judgment or 20 years after the release from\\nimprisonment of the person fined, or upon the death of the individual fined.” 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3613(b). Because the defendant’s obligation to pay persists for at least twenty years after his\\nsentencing, it would make little sense for the district court to consider only the defendant’s\\nfinancial condition at the time of sentencing. That snapshot in time may not accurately represent\\nthe defendant’s condition five, ten, or twenty years after sentencing. Rather, the defendant’s\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 6\\n\\n\\nemployment prospects and earnings potential are probative of his ability to pay the assessment—\\nand are fair game for the court to consider at sentencing.\\n\\n Finally, we note that each circuit that has considered this issue has agreed that the district\\ncourt may consider the defendant’s future financial condition—such as his earnings potential—\\nwhen making the indigency determination. See Graves, 908 F.3d at 141–42; Janatsch, 722 F.\\nApp’x at 811; Lail, 736 F. App’x at 382; Kelley, 861 F.3d at 802; United States v. Strange, 692\\nF. App’x 346, 349 (9th Cir. 2017). Although Shepherd acknowledges that line of decisions, he\\npoints to a district-court decision in which the court declined to look beyond the defendant’s\\npresent financial condition when applying § 3014. Medina, 2017 WL 3189900, at *2. Indeed,\\nthe court explained that it had “reviewed the cases contained in the government’s supplemental\\nbrief, but none of those cases provide authority that the Court may impose the special assessment\\nfee based on a defendant’s hypothetical future earning capacity or the fact that a defendant held\\nregular employment in the past.” Id. We find Medina unpersuasive, largely because several\\ncircuit courts, including the Tenth Circuit, have since provided the authority that the district court\\nfound absent.\\n\\n For these reasons, the district court’s decision to consider Shepherd’s earnings potential,\\nalong with his present finances, was appropriate under § 3014.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard is a separate question from\\nwhether the district court correctly concluded that Shepherd is non-indigent. Shepherd argues\\nthat the district court answered the latter question—a factual question—incorrectly. We review\\nthe district court’s factual determination for clear error, and in doing so, we may reverse only if\\nwe have the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.\\nDarwich, 337 F.3d 645, 663 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Latouf, 132 F.3d 320, 331\\n(6th Cir. 1997)).\\n\\n At the outset, we note that the fact that the district court appointed Shepherd counsel is\\nprobative but not dispositive of whether Shepherd is indigent under § 3014. The Criminal\\nJustice Act authorizes district courts to appoint counsel to defendants who are “financially\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 7\\n\\n\\nunable to obtain adequate representation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a). But “the standard of financial\\ninability is ‘something less than indigency or destitution.’” Brown v. United States, 716 F.\\nApp’x 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653, 660 (2d Cir.\\n1983)). This is a matter of common sense: a criminal defendant might be unable to pay a six-\\nfigure legal bill and yet still possess the means of subsistence. Although all indigent defendants\\nmight be financially unable to obtain adequate legal counsel, the inverse is not necessarily true.\\nThat Shepherd has court-appointed counsel is not sufficient to support a finding of indigency.1\\n\\n Shepherd points to his limited education and low earnings potential as signs of his\\nindigency. According to Shepherd, the fact that he has only a GED and vocational training\\n“limit[s] his reasonable future earning potential.” (Appellant Br. at 10.) In one sense, that may\\nbe true. That Shepherd does not have a degree in engineering or computer science, for example,\\nmay limit his future earnings. But as the government responds, one-third of working Americans\\ncan claim a high-school diploma as their highest educational credential. Shepherd, by contrast,\\nhas a high school diploma plus additional training as an emergency-medical technician—\\nevidence that, if anything, he is not indigent.\\n\\n Shepherd also notes that he will have to register as a sex offender upon his release from\\nprison, which he claims will also limit his earnings potential. That fact may also be objectively\\ntrue, but it does not compel the district court to find him indigent. To the contrary, Shepherd’s\\nargument conflicts with the statute, which contemplates assessing sex offenders. Section 3014,\\nwhich Congress titled the “Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015,” applies to defendants\\nwhose convictions fall under five chapters of the criminal code. Two of those chapters, 109A\\nand 110, relate to sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of minors, respectively—crimes for\\nwhich the defendant, like Shepherd, may have to register as a sex offender. 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3014(a)(2)–(3). Thus, Shepherd cannot use his sex-offender status to shield him from paying\\nthe assessment.\\n\\n The closer question is whether Shepherd’s financial obligations—$25,000 in restitution\\nand as much as $30,000 in child support—render him indigent. Although Shepherd had been\\n\\n 1We also note that the district court’s exercise of discretion to waive Shepherd’s criminal fines—for\\nreasons the district court did not state on the record—does not change our analysis.\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 8\\n\\n\\ncurrent on his child support payments before he was incarcerated, his hourly wage will decline\\nsignificantly while he is in prison and yet his $350 monthly support payment may not.2 And\\nShepherd’s responsibility to pay $25,000 in restitution will begin the day he exits prison. All\\ntold, Shepherd will owe as much as $55,000 upon his release from prison, calling into question\\nhis ability to pay that sum plus the $5,000 assessment.\\n\\n To be sure, these are nontrivial obligations, especially for someone with a negative net\\nworth at sentencing. But time is on Shepherd’s side. Shepherd was 29 years old at sentencing,\\nmeaning that if he serves his full, 96-month sentence, he will leave prison well before he turns\\n40 and with many years of future employability. And Shepherd has 20 years after his release\\nfrom prison to pay the assessment. By budgeting, Shepherd need only save $250 each year or\\nunder $5 per week to stay on pace. As the judge remarked at sentencing, “when I combine the\\ndefendant’s ability to earn in the future, along with his other obligations, I think it’s something\\nthat can be handled by the defendant in this case.” (R. 41, Tr. at PageID #2088.) We agree.\\nThe district court made no error in its factual determination.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n As a last resort, Shepherd argues that the district court erred by failing to make an explicit\\nfinding of his non-indigency. But the statute requires no such finding, and in general, district\\ncourts “retain considerable latitude in deciding which arguments to discuss and how much\\nexplanation is necessary.” United States v. Mitchell, 295 F. App’x 799, 804 (6th Cir. 2008).\\nIndeed, the court has “done its duty” if the “‘record makes clear that the sentencing judge\\nlistened to each argument,’ ‘considered the supporting evidence,’ was ‘fully aware’ of the\\ndefendant’s circumstances and ‘took them into account’ in sentencing him.” Id. (quoting Rita v.\\nUnited States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007)). While the district court did not expressly state that\\nShepherd is “non-indigent,” it concluded as much when it imposed the $5,000 assessment after\\nhearing argument from both sides about Shepherd’s finances, education, and employment\\nhistory. And the district court justified that decision, in part, by noting Shepherd’s “ability to\\nearn in the future.” (Id.) Still more, the district court’s finding was specific enough to prompt an\\n\\n 2Shepherd’s counsel acknowledged the possibility that Shepherd’s monthly payment could decrease while\\nhe is in prison.\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 9\\n\\n\\nobjection to the assessment from Shepherd’s counsel, thus preserving this issue for appeal. As a\\nresult, Shepherd’s argument is unavailing.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment imposing the $5,000 JVTA\\nassessment.\\n\\n No. 18-3993 United States v. Shepherd Page 10\\n\\n\\n ________________________________________________________\\n\\n CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART\\n ________________________________________________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2069,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4615465,"string":"4,615,465"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dimitar PETLECHKOV, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Dimitar Petlechkov"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-01"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-5991"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Suhrheinrich, Thapar, Larsen\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"THAPAR, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0082p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5991\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n DIMITAR PETLECHKOV, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.\\n No. 2:17-cr-20344-1—Jon Phipps McCalla, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 1, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Michael J. Stengel, STENGEL LAW FIRM, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant.\\nDavid Pritchard, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Memphis, Tennessee, for\\nAppellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Proper venue in a criminal case is an “essential part[] of a free\\nand good government.” The Federal Farmer, in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 230 (Herbert J.\\nStoring ed. 1981). The government failed to meet its constitutional obligation to prove venue for\\nmost of the charges it brought against Dimitar Petlechkov. Accordingly, we affirm in part,\\nreverse in part, and remand.\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 2\\n\\n\\n I.\\n\\n FedEx provides shipping discounts to high-volume customers. In order to obtain such a\\ndiscount, Dimitar Petlechkov lied to FedEx and claimed he was a vendor for a high-volume\\nshipper. He used those discounted rates to offer shipping services to third parties, pocketing the\\nprofit margin between what he charged the third parties and what he paid FedEx. He shipped\\nnearly 30,000 packages this way until FedEx finally caught him.\\n\\n The government charged Petlechkov with 20 counts of mail fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 1341.\\nA jury convicted him on each count. The district court sentenced Petlechkov to 37 months in\\nprison and ordered him to pay approximately $800,000 in restitution. He now appeals his\\nconvictions, sentence, and restitution award.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Petlechkov challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his mail fraud\\nconvictions. On appeal, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light\\nmost favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential\\nelements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319\\n(1979).\\n\\n To convict Petlechkov of mail fraud, the government had to prove that he devised a\\nscheme to defraud, used the mails in furtherance of that scheme, and intended to deprive the\\nvictim of money or property. 18 U.S.C. § 1341; United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 310\\n(6th Cir. 2010). A fraudulent scheme must include a material misrepresentation, which is a\\nmisrepresentation that could influence the decision of a “person[] of ordinary prudence and\\ncomprehension.” United States v. Jamieson, 427 F.3d 394, 415–16 (6th Cir. 2005). Materiality\\nis the only element Petlechkov disputes on appeal.\\n\\n Petlechkov concedes that he made a misrepresentation but contends that it was not\\nmaterial. His misrepresentation was simple: he called FedEx’s account manager for General\\nDynamics—one of FedEx’s larger clients—and claimed he was a General Dynamics vendor\\nentitled to its discounted shipping rate. Soon afterwards, FedEx linked Petlechkov’s account to\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 3\\n\\n\\nGeneral Dynamics, and he was able to ship packages at its rate. All it took was a single phone\\ncall. Petlechkov makes two arguments for why his phone call could not have influenced a\\n“person[] of ordinary prudence and comprehension.” Id. at 415–16. First, he claims vendors\\nwere not actually entitled to discounts under General Dynamics’s contract with FedEx. And this\\nleads to his second argument: that federal law prohibits the unwritten discounts he received.\\nThus, according to Petlechkov, the FedEx employees who signed off on his discount request\\nwere not ordinary, prudent people—his bald assertion that he was a General Dynamics vendor\\nshould not have convinced FedEx to give him a discount.\\n\\n Petlechkov’s arguments fail. First, whatever discounts the General Dynamics agreement\\nrequired FedEx to provide, nothing in the record suggests that the agreement barred FedEx from\\nbeing more generous than required. And indeed, FedEx’s standard “operating procedure” was to\\nextend a customer’s discounts to its vendors. R. 75, Pg. ID 384–85, 397–98. Because FedEx\\nhad such a policy, an ordinary, prudent employee would follow it. Thus, Petlechkov’s false\\nstatement was capable of influencing FedEx’s decision. And indeed, it actually influenced\\nFedEx’s decision—FedEx gave him a discount that lasted for several years. The fact that\\nPetlechkov’s false statement caused its intended result is strong evidence that it was material.\\nSee United States v. Bohn, 281 F. App’x 430, 440 (6th Cir. 2008); Jamieson, 427 F.3d at 416.\\n\\n Petlechkov’s second argument fares no better. He claims that FedEx violated the\\nSarbanes-Oxley Act by extending him a discount. See generally Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,\\nPub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745. And he argues that a person of ordinary prudence would not\\nhave granted him a discount that violated federal law. But Petlechkov neither cites Sarbanes-\\nOxley nor offers any legal analysis of it, and it is not our job to construct a legal argument for\\nhim. See McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995–96 (6th Cir. 1997). Instead, Petlechkov\\nmakes a purely factual argument. He relies entirely on the testimony of a FedEx employee,\\nAndrew Newborn. Thus, Petlechkov’s argument turns on interpretation of that testimony.\\n\\n Newborn did testify that in some circumstances unwritten discounts violate Sarbanes-\\nOxley. But he never said that unwritten discounts like Petlechkov’s—contained in a written\\nagreement but extended to someone not named in that agreement—violated Sarbanes-Oxley.\\nAnd more specifically, Newborn never said that Petlechkov’s specific vendor discount violated\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 4\\n\\n\\nSarbanes-Oxley. Despite Petlechkov’s arguments to the contrary, a rational juror could have\\nfound his misrepresentation material.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Next, Petlechkov argues that, even if he is in fact guilty, we should still dismiss the case\\nagainst him because the government failed to prove that venue was proper in the Western\\nDistrict of Tennessee.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n The government argues we should not reach the merits of Petlechkov’s venue objection\\nbecause he “waived his challenge to venue by failing to raise it pre-trial.” Appellee Br. at 10. In\\ndoing so, the government’s brief bounces back and forth between the concepts of waiver and\\nforfeiture. Though attorneys (and even courts) often use these concepts “interchangeably,” they\\nare distinct. Brenay v. Schartow, 709 F. App’x 331, 336 n.1 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing United States\\nv. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993)). As the Supreme Court has explained, “forfeiture is the\\nfailure to make the timely assertion of a right,” while “waiver is the intentional relinquishment or\\nabandonment of a known right.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 733 (internal quotation marks omitted).\\nThe government’s brief exclusively uses the term “waiver” rather than “forfeiture,” and the\\ngovernment asserts that Petlechkov’s attorney “acknowledged to the government that venue was\\nproper.” Appellee Br. at 10. So the government does appear to be making a waiver argument.\\n\\n But the government has not shown that Petlechkov’s attorney can singlehandedly waive\\nhis client’s right to be tried in a proper venue. The Supreme Court has distinguished between\\n“tactical” rights (which can be waived by the defendant’s attorney) and “fundamental” rights\\n(which can only be waived by the defendant himself). Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242,\\n250–51 (2008); see also McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 1508 (2018). And as Justice\\nScalia explained in Gonzalez, distinguishing between tactical and fundamental is no easy task.\\nSee Gonzalez, 553 U.S. at 256–57 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (“Depending on the\\ncircumstances, waiving any right can be a tactical decision. . . . I know of no objective criterion\\nfor ranking rights.”).\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 5\\n\\n\\n But ultimately it does not matter because there is no evidence that either Petlechkov or\\nhis attorney “intentional[ly] relinquish[ed]” Petlechkov’s right to proper venue. Olano, 507 U.S.\\nat 733. The government relies solely on a purported phone call with Petlechkov’s attorney—a\\nconversation that “left [the government] with the impression” that a venue challenge was not\\nforthcoming. R. 75-1, Pg. ID 523. The details of the alleged conversation are not in the record.\\nPetlechkov’s attorney testified that he had “no independent recollection of the conversation,” id.\\nat 532, and the government admitted to the district court that there “was by no means a formal\\nstipulation” on the venue issue. Id. at 523. The government, therefore, has not met its burden of\\nproving the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment” of proper venue. See Olano, 507 U.S.\\nat 733.\\n\\n To the extent the government is claiming forfeiture, that argument fails as well. Again,\\nforfeiture “is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right.” Id. Petlechkov did not object to\\nvenue until after the close of the government’s proof at trial, and typically venue objections are\\nforfeited if not raised before trial. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(A)(i). But there is an exception\\nto this general rule. Defendants are only required to raise venue objections before trial if they\\nhave notice of the alleged venue defect. Id. Thus, if a venue defect is not “apparent on the face\\nof the indictment” and the “defendant does not have notice of the defect through other means,”\\nthen he does not need to object before trial. United States v. Grenoble, 413 F.3d 569, 573 (6th\\nCir. 2005). In those circumstances, the defendant can presume that the government will offer\\nevidence at trial proving that venue is proper. But if the government fails to meet its burden at\\ntrial, then the defendant is free to raise the objection. Id.\\n\\n Here, the government concedes that there was no venue defect apparent on the face of the\\nindictment and does not argue that Petlechkov himself had some other reason to know of a defect\\nbefore trial. Instead, the government claims the purported concession of venue by Petlechkov’s\\nattorney shows that Petlechkov was on notice of a venue defect. The government cites only one\\ncase: United States v. Adams, 803 F.2d 722, 1986 WL 17714 (6th Cir. 1986) (table). But there,\\nthe defendant’s attorney “conceded [on appeal] that he knew well before trial” the basis for a\\nvenue objection and had failed to raise it. Id. at *9. Here, in contrast, Petlechkov’s attorney\\ncontests that he conceded venue below and does not make any concession on appeal either.\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 6\\n\\n\\n Accordingly, as the government has not shown that Petlechkov waived or forfeited his\\nvenue objection, we must address the merits of Petlechkov’s venue argument.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n The Constitution requires that criminal defendants be tried in the place where they\\ncommitted their alleged crimes. U.S. Const. art. 3, § 2, cl. 3; id. amend. VI. Determining proper\\nvenue is a two-step process. If the criminal statute has a specific venue provision, then courts\\nmust accept that congressional choice (assuming it is otherwise constitutionally permissible). If\\nnot, then courts determine the proper venue based on “the nature of the crime alleged and the\\nlocation of the act or acts constituting it.” Travis v. United States, 364 U.S. 631, 635 (1961); see\\nalso United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 279 (1999).\\n\\n The government says we should skip to the second step and analyze the “nature of the\\ncrime alleged.” Travis, 364 U.S. at 635. But that is wrong: mail fraud has a specific statutory\\nvenue provision. It provides, in pertinent part, that offenses “involving the use of the mails” can\\nbe “prosecuted in any district from, through, or into which . . . mail matter . . . moves.”\\n18 U.S.C. § 3237(a). As this circuit has explained, “[a] plain reading of the text” shows “that\\nvenue in a mail fraud case is limited to districts where the mail is deposited, received, or moves\\nthrough.” United States v. Wood, 364 F.3d 704, 713 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a))\\n(emphasis added).\\n\\n The government must prove proper venue for each count by a preponderance of the\\nevidence. United States v. Beddow, 957 F.2d 1330, 1335 (6th Cir. 1992). And in this case, each\\ncount was tied to a specific package. Thus, the government had to prove each specific package\\nmoved through the Western District of Tennessee. Since the jury found that the government did\\nso, Petlechkov concedes that we can only reverse if no rational juror could have come to that\\nconclusion. United States v. Kernell, 667 F.3d 746, 750 (6th Cir. 2012); United States v. Cooper,\\n40 F. App’x 39, 40 (6th Cir. 2002).\\n\\n Counts 6, 13, and 19. The evidence showed that the packages underlying these three\\ncounts were all sent from Munford, Tennessee, which is in the Western District of Tennessee.\\nThe sender for each package was Aser Gruppe International. Aser Gruppe’s CEO Stephen\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 7\\n\\n\\nOsborn testified that his company generally shipped its packages from a FedEx drop box in\\nMunford. Though Osborn (understandably) did not have a specific recollection of the three\\npackages at issue, the government does not need to present direct evidence of venue. Instead, the\\ngovernment can prove venue based on a reasonable inference from circumstantial evidence.\\nUnited States v. Charlton, 372 F.2d 663, 664–65 (6th Cir. 1967); 2 Charles A. Wright & Arthur\\nR. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Criminal § 307. Courts have found proof of venue in\\nmail fraud cases based on general practices and circumstantial evidence like we have here. See,\\ne.g., United States v. Holt, 899 F.2d 15, 1990 WL 37613, at *2 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)\\n(table) (finding proof of venue in a mail fraud case based on a reasonable inference from\\ncircumstantial evidence, even though the sender did not testify about the packages at issue);\\nUnited States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367, 400–01 (5th Cir. 1981). Since a rational juror could\\ninfer that Osborn followed his general practice and dropped the packages at the FedEx drop box\\nin Munford, a rational juror could have subsequently found that the government proved venue\\nfor those Munford-related counts—6, 13, and 19. We affirm Petlechkov’s convictions on those\\ncounts.\\n\\n Counts 1–5, 7–12, 14–18, and 20. The packages underlying each of these counts were\\nsent from, and delivered to, destinations outside of the Western District of Tennessee. So to\\nprove venue for these counts, the government needed to show that the packages moved through\\nthe Western District of Tennessee on the way to their destinations. Wood, 364 F.3d at 713.\\n\\n The government’s venue argument for these counts relies on how FedEx’s shipping\\nprocess works. FedEx packages pass through hubs, where employees sort them by destination\\nand then send them on their way. See Tony Vieira, Why Use A Hub and Spoke System, FedEx\\n(April 16, 2009), https://about.van.fedex.com/blog/why-use-a-hub-and-spoke-system. The only\\nhub mentioned during trial was the one in Memphis, Tennessee, which is in the Western District.\\nBut the government presented no evidence tying any particular package to that Memphis hub.\\nYet, the government argues, the jury could have reasonably inferred that each of the packages\\nmoved through it.\\n\\n But the government slices the record too thin. No witness testified that Memphis was\\nFedEx’s only hub or even the primary hub. Indeed, the record shows that FedEx has “several\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 8\\n\\n\\nhubs” outside of Memphis, even though they were not specifically named. R. 75, Pg. ID 411.\\nAnd unlike Counts 6, 13, and 19, there is no evidence of typical shipping practices, e.g., that\\nFedEx typically sent packages from certain locations through its Memphis hub. Although the\\nrecord reflects that FedEx’s worldwide headquarters is in Memphis, no witness said that means\\nany particular package moved through FedEx’s separate Memphis hub.\\n\\n The government has one final argument that applies only to the packages with\\ninternational destinations. According to the government, the only international hub proven at\\ntrial was the Memphis hub. Thus, the government argues, the jury could have inferred that any\\npackages shipped abroad must have moved through Memphis. If the evidence showed that\\nMemphis was indeed FedEx’s only international hub, then that would sustain venue for the\\ncounts relying on packages with international destinations. But no one testified that Memphis is\\nthe only international hub; a witness just said that it is “an international hub.” Id. at 414\\n(emphasis added). Nor did anyone testify about FedEx’s typical shipping procedures for\\ninternational packages. So the counts relying on international packages are no different than the\\nothers.\\n\\n In sum, it is possible that some of the packages at issue went through the Memphis hub.\\nBut that is not enough. The government must prove venue count-by-count, and to do that it must\\npresent enough evidence to allow a rational juror to find venue by a preponderance of the\\nevidence. See Wood, 364 F.3d at 713–14; United States v. Greene, 995 F.2d 793, 801–02 (8th\\nCir. 1993). No evidence cannot be a preponderance of the evidence. And there is simply no\\nevidence, direct or circumstantial, that any specific package implicated in these counts ever\\nmoved through the Western District of Tennessee. Cf. Johnson v. Coyle, 200 F.3d 987, 994–95\\n(6th Cir. 2000) (holding that no rational juror could have found the defendant guilty of\\nkidnapping when the government did not present any evidence of kidnapping as defined by state\\nlaw). Accordingly, no rational juror could have found that the government proved venue for\\nCounts 1–5, 7–12, 14–18, and 20. We must dismiss Petlechkov’s convictions on these counts.\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 9\\n\\n\\n C.\\n\\n Petlechkov did not argue that we should dismiss with prejudice—i.e., without giving the\\ngovernment a chance to try again. And the government did not address the issue either. But we\\nhave the discretion and obligation to explain the effect of our decision. See United States v.\\nTaylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336 (1988).\\n\\n This issue turns on the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Double\\nJeopardy Clause bars a retrial after an acquittal. U.S. Const. amend. V; Evans v. Michigan, 568\\nU.S. 313, 318 (2013). An “acquittal” is “any ruling that the prosecution’s proof is insufficient to\\nestablish criminal liability for an offense.” Evans, 568 U.S. at 318. In contrast, procedural\\ndismissals “unrelated to factual guilt or innocence” do not implicate double jeopardy concerns.\\nId. at 319. For instance, if a defendant successfully moves for dismissal based on pre-indictment\\ndelay, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar another prosecution against him. United States\\nv. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 95 (1978).\\n\\n A dismissal on venue grounds does not qualify as an “acquittal” for double jeopardy\\npurposes. Though venue is a factual issue that the government must prove, it is not an element\\nof the underlying criminal offense. United States v. Kaytso, 868 F.2d 1020, 1021 (9th Cir.\\n1988). Accordingly, at least three of our sister circuits have held that a venue dismissal is not an\\n“acquittal.” Kaytso, 868 F.2d at 1021; Haney v. Burgess, 799 F.2d 661, 663–64 (11th Cir. 1986);\\nWilkett v. United States, 655 F.2d 1007, 1011–12 (10th Cir. 1981) (“Venue is wholly neutral; it\\nis a question of procedure, more than anything else, and it does not either prove or disprove the\\nguilt of the accused.”).\\n\\n This is true even for mail fraud, where the test for venue—that mail moved through the\\ndistrict—resembles a substantive element of the offense. See Wood, 364 F.3d at 710, 713 (citing\\n18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 3237(a)). To prove the substantive offense, the government established that\\nPetlechkov’s fraudulent scheme relied on mailing packages, a fact that he does not challenge.\\nBut proving venue required something more. The government needed to prove where those\\npackages went. In this case, it had to prove that they moved through the Western District of\\nTennessee. The government failed to make that showing, but that failure does not change the\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 10\\n\\n\\nfact that Petlechkov committed mail fraud. Thus, we are dismissing the seventeen counts\\nbecause of “reasons required by the Constitution or laws . . . unrelated to factual guilt or\\ninnocence.” Scott, 437 U.S. at 98 n.11. That means a dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.\\n\\n * * *\\n\\n We affirm Petlechkov’s convictions on Counts 6, 13, and 19, and dismiss all remaining\\ncounts without prejudice. We need not address Petlechkov’s challenges to his sentence and the\\nrestitution award because the district court will need to both resentence Petlechkov and\\nrecalculate that award. See Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 412–13, 419–20 (1990);\\nWood, 364 F.3d at 714.\\n\\n We AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with\\nthis opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4392718/\", \"author_raw\": \"THAPAR, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"SUHRHEINRICH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"THAPAR"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"LARSEN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4615465/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dimitar PETLECHKOV, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-01\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0082p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n > No. 18-5991\n v. │\n │\n │\n DIMITAR PETLECHKOV, │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.\n No. 2:17-cr-20344-1—Jon Phipps McCalla, District Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: May 1, 2019\n\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: Michael J. Stengel, STENGEL LAW FIRM, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant.\nDavid Pritchard, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Memphis, Tennessee, for\nAppellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Proper venue in a criminal case is an “essential part[] of a free\nand good government.” The Federal Farmer, in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 230 (Herbert J.\nStoring ed. 1981). The government failed to meet its constitutional obligation to prove venue for\nmost of the charges it brought against Dimitar Petlechkov. Accordingly, we affirm in part,\nreverse in part, and remand.\n\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 2\n\n\n I.\n\n FedEx provides shipping discounts to high-volume customers. In order to obtain such a\ndiscount, Dimitar Petlechkov lied to FedEx and claimed he was a vendor for a high-volume\nshipper. He used those discounted rates to offer shipping services to third parties, pocketing the\nprofit margin between what he charged the third parties and what he paid FedEx. He shipped\nnearly 30,000 packages this way until FedEx finally caught him.\n\n The government charged Petlechkov with 20 counts of mail fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 1341.\nA jury convicted him on each count. The district court sentenced Petlechkov to 37 months in\nprison and ordered him to pay approximately $800,000 in restitution. He now appeals his\nconvictions, sentence, and restitution award.\n\n II.\n\n Petlechkov challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his mail fraud\nconvictions. On appeal, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light\nmost favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential\nelements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319\n(1979).\n\n To convict Petlechkov of mail fraud, the government had to prove that he devised a\nscheme to defraud, used the mails in furtherance of that scheme, and intended to deprive the\nvictim of money or property. 18 U.S.C. § 1341; United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 310\n(6th Cir. 2010). A fraudulent scheme must include a material misrepresentation, which is a\nmisrepresentation that could influence the decision of a “person[] of ordinary prudence and\ncomprehension.” United States v. Jamieson, 427 F.3d 394, 415–16 (6th Cir. 2005). Materiality\nis the only element Petlechkov disputes on appeal.\n\n Petlechkov concedes that he made a misrepresentation but contends that it was not\nmaterial. His misrepresentation was simple: he called FedEx’s account manager for General\nDynamics—one of FedEx’s larger clients—and claimed he was a General Dynamics vendor\nentitled to its discounted shipping rate. Soon afterwards, FedEx linked Petlechkov’s account to\n\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 3\n\n\nGeneral Dynamics, and he was able to ship packages at its rate. All it took was a single phone\ncall. Petlechkov makes two arguments for why his phone call could not have influenced a\n“person[] of ordinary prudence and comprehension.” Id. at 415–16. First, he claims vendors\nwere not actually entitled to discounts under General Dynamics’s contract with FedEx. And this\nleads to his second argument: that federal law prohibits the unwritten discounts he received.\nThus, according to Petlechkov, the FedEx employees who signed off on his discount request\nwere not ordinary, prudent people—his bald assertion that he was a General Dynamics vendor\nshould not have convinced FedEx to give him a discount.\n\n Petlechkov’s arguments fail. First, whatever discounts the General Dynamics agreement\nrequired FedEx to provide, nothing in the record suggests that the agreement barred FedEx from\nbeing more generous than required. And indeed, FedEx’s standard “operating procedure” was to\nextend a customer’s discounts to its vendors. R. 75, Pg. ID 384–85, 397–98. Because FedEx\nhad such a policy, an ordinary, prudent employee would follow it. Thus, Petlechkov’s false\nstatement was capable of influencing FedEx’s decision. And indeed, it actually influenced\nFedEx’s decision—FedEx gave him a discount that lasted for several years. The fact that\nPetlechkov’s false statement caused its intended result is strong evidence that it was material.\nSee United States v. Bohn, 281 F. App’x 430, 440 (6th Cir. 2008); Jamieson, 427 F.3d at 416.\n\n Petlechkov’s second argument fares no better. He claims that FedEx violated the\nSarbanes-Oxley Act by extending him a discount. See generally Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,\nPub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745. And he argues that a person of ordinary prudence would not\nhave granted him a discount that violated federal law. But Petlechkov neither cites Sarbanes-\nOxley nor offers any legal analysis of it, and it is not our job to construct a legal argument for\nhim. See McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995–96 (6th Cir. 1997). Instead, Petlechkov\nmakes a purely factual argument. He relies entirely on the testimony of a FedEx employee,\nAndrew Newborn. Thus, Petlechkov’s argument turns on interpretation of that testimony.\n\n Newborn did testify that in some circumstances unwritten discounts violate Sarbanes-\nOxley. But he never said that unwritten discounts like Petlechkov’s—contained in a written\nagreement but extended to someone not named in that agreement—violated Sarbanes-Oxley.\nAnd more specifically, Newborn never said that Petlechkov’s specific vendor discount violated\n\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 4\n\n\nSarbanes-Oxley. Despite Petlechkov’s arguments to the contrary, a rational juror could have\nfound his misrepresentation material.\n\n III.\n\n Next, Petlechkov argues that, even if he is in fact guilty, we should still dismiss the case\nagainst him because the government failed to prove that venue was proper in the Western\nDistrict of Tennessee.\n\n A.\n\n The government argues we should not reach the merits of Petlechkov’s venue objection\nbecause he “waived his challenge to venue by failing to raise it pre-trial.” Appellee Br. at 10. In\ndoing so, the government’s brief bounces back and forth between the concepts of waiver and\nforfeiture. Though attorneys (and even courts) often use these concepts “interchangeably,” they\nare distinct. Brenay v. Schartow, 709 F. App’x 331, 336 n.1 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing United States\nv. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993)). As the Supreme Court has explained, “forfeiture is the\nfailure to make the timely assertion of a right,” while “waiver is the intentional relinquishment or\nabandonment of a known right.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 733 (internal quotation marks omitted).\nThe government’s brief exclusively uses the term “waiver” rather than “forfeiture,” and the\ngovernment asserts that Petlechkov’s attorney “acknowledged to the government that venue was\nproper.” Appellee Br. at 10. So the government does appear to be making a waiver argument.\n\n But the government has not shown that Petlechkov’s attorney can singlehandedly waive\nhis client’s right to be tried in a proper venue. The Supreme Court has distinguished between\n“tactical” rights (which can be waived by the defendant’s attorney) and “fundamental” rights\n(which can only be waived by the defendant himself). Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242,\n250–51 (2008); see also McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 1508 (2018). And as Justice\nScalia explained in Gonzalez, distinguishing between tactical and fundamental is no easy task.\nSee Gonzalez, 553 U.S. at 256–57 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (“Depending on the\ncircumstances, waiving any right can be a tactical decision. . . . I know of no objective criterion\nfor ranking rights.”).\n\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 5\n\n\n But ultimately it does not matter because there is no evidence that either Petlechkov or\nhis attorney “intentional[ly] relinquish[ed]” Petlechkov’s right to proper venue. Olano, 507 U.S.\nat 733. The government relies solely on a purported phone call with Petlechkov’s attorney—a\nconversation that “left [the government] with the impression” that a venue challenge was not\nforthcoming. R. 75-1, Pg. ID 523. The details of the alleged conversation are not in the record.\nPetlechkov’s attorney testified that he had “no independent recollection of the conversation,” id.\nat 532, and the government admitted to the district court that there “was by no means a formal\nstipulation” on the venue issue. Id. at 523. The government, therefore, has not met its burden of\nproving the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment” of proper venue. See Olano, 507 U.S.\nat 733.\n\n To the extent the government is claiming forfeiture, that argument fails as well. Again,\nforfeiture “is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right.” Id. Petlechkov did not object to\nvenue until after the close of the government’s proof at trial, and typically venue objections are\nforfeited if not raised before trial. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(A)(i). But there is an exception\nto this general rule. Defendants are only required to raise venue objections before trial if they\nhave notice of the alleged venue defect. Id. Thus, if a venue defect is not “apparent on the face\nof the indictment” and the “defendant does not have notice of the defect through other means,”\nthen he does not need to object before trial. United States v. Grenoble, 413 F.3d 569, 573 (6th\nCir. 2005). In those circumstances, the defendant can presume that the government will offer\nevidence at trial proving that venue is proper. But if the government fails to meet its burden at\ntrial, then the defendant is free to raise the objection. Id.\n\n Here, the government concedes that there was no venue defect apparent on the face of the\nindictment and does not argue that Petlechkov himself had some other reason to know of a defect\nbefore trial. Instead, the government claims the purported concession of venue by Petlechkov’s\nattorney shows that Petlechkov was on notice of a venue defect. The government cites only one\ncase: United States v. Adams, 803 F.2d 722, 1986 WL 17714 (6th Cir. 1986) (table). But there,\nthe defendant’s attorney “conceded [on appeal] that he knew well before trial” the basis for a\nvenue objection and had failed to raise it. Id. at *9. Here, in contrast, Petlechkov’s attorney\ncontests that he conceded venue below and does not make any concession on appeal either.\n\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 6\n\n\n Accordingly, as the government has not shown that Petlechkov waived or forfeited his\nvenue objection, we must address the merits of Petlechkov’s venue argument.\n\n B.\n\n The Constitution requires that criminal defendants be tried in the place where they\ncommitted their alleged crimes. U.S. Const. art. 3, § 2, cl. 3; id. amend. VI. Determining proper\nvenue is a two-step process. If the criminal statute has a specific venue provision, then courts\nmust accept that congressional choice (assuming it is otherwise constitutionally permissible). If\nnot, then courts determine the proper venue based on “the nature of the crime alleged and the\nlocation of the act or acts constituting it.” Travis v. United States, 364 U.S. 631, 635 (1961); see\nalso United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 279 (1999).\n\n The government says we should skip to the second step and analyze the “nature of the\ncrime alleged.” Travis, 364 U.S. at 635. But that is wrong: mail fraud has a specific statutory\nvenue provision. It provides, in pertinent part, that offenses “involving the use of the mails” can\nbe “prosecuted in any district from, through, or into which . . . mail matter . . . moves.”\n18 U.S.C. § 3237(a). As this circuit has explained, “[a] plain reading of the text” shows “that\nvenue in a mail fraud case is limited to districts where the mail is deposited, received, or moves\nthrough.” United States v. Wood, 364 F.3d 704, 713 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a))\n(emphasis added).\n\n The government must prove proper venue for each count by a preponderance of the\nevidence. United States v. Beddow, 957 F.2d 1330, 1335 (6th Cir. 1992). And in this case, each\ncount was tied to a specific package. Thus, the government had to prove each specific package\nmoved through the Western District of Tennessee. Since the jury found that the government did\nso, Petlechkov concedes that we can only reverse if no rational juror could have come to that\nconclusion. United States v. Kernell, 667 F.3d 746, 750 (6th Cir. 2012); United States v. Cooper,\n40 F. App’x 39, 40 (6th Cir. 2002).\n\n Counts 6, 13, and 19. The evidence showed that the packages underlying these three\ncounts were all sent from Munford, Tennessee, which is in the Western District of Tennessee.\nThe sender for each package was Aser Gruppe International. Aser Gruppe’s CEO Stephen\n\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 7\n\n\nOsborn testified that his company generally shipped its packages from a FedEx drop box in\nMunford. Though Osborn (understandably) did not have a specific recollection of the three\npackages at issue, the government does not need to present direct evidence of venue. Instead, the\ngovernment can prove venue based on a reasonable inference from circumstantial evidence.\nUnited States v. Charlton, 372 F.2d 663, 664–65 (6th Cir. 1967); 2 Charles A. Wright & Arthur\nR. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Criminal § 307. Courts have found proof of venue in\nmail fraud cases based on general practices and circumstantial evidence like we have here. See,\ne.g., United States v. Holt, 899 F.2d 15, 1990 WL 37613, at *2 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)\n(table) (finding proof of venue in a mail fraud case based on a reasonable inference from\ncircumstantial evidence, even though the sender did not testify about the packages at issue);\nUnited States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367, 400–01 (5th Cir. 1981). Since a rational juror could\ninfer that Osborn followed his general practice and dropped the packages at the FedEx drop box\nin Munford, a rational juror could have subsequently found that the government proved venue\nfor those Munford-related counts—6, 13, and 19. We affirm Petlechkov’s convictions on those\ncounts.\n\n Counts 1–5, 7–12, 14–18, and 20. The packages underlying each of these counts were\nsent from, and delivered to, destinations outside of the Western District of Tennessee. So to\nprove venue for these counts, the government needed to show that the packages moved through\nthe Western District of Tennessee on the way to their destinations. Wood, 364 F.3d at 713.\n\n The government’s venue argument for these counts relies on how FedEx’s shipping\nprocess works. FedEx packages pass through hubs, where employees sort them by destination\nand then send them on their way. See Tony Vieira, Why Use A Hub and Spoke System, FedEx\n(April 16, 2009), https://about.van.fedex.com/blog/why-use-a-hub-and-spoke-system. The only\nhub mentioned during trial was the one in Memphis, Tennessee, which is in the Western District.\nBut the government presented no evidence tying any particular package to that Memphis hub.\nYet, the government argues, the jury could have reasonably inferred that each of the packages\nmoved through it.\n\n But the government slices the record too thin. No witness testified that Memphis was\nFedEx’s only hub or even the primary hub. Indeed, the record shows that FedEx has “several\n\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 8\n\n\nhubs” outside of Memphis, even though they were not specifically named. R. 75, Pg. ID 411.\nAnd unlike Counts 6, 13, and 19, there is no evidence of typical shipping practices, e.g., that\nFedEx typically sent packages from certain locations through its Memphis hub. Although the\nrecord reflects that FedEx’s worldwide headquarters is in Memphis, no witness said that means\nany particular package moved through FedEx’s separate Memphis hub.\n\n The government has one final argument that applies only to the packages with\ninternational destinations. According to the government, the only international hub proven at\ntrial was the Memphis hub. Thus, the government argues, the jury could have inferred that any\npackages shipped abroad must have moved through Memphis. If the evidence showed that\nMemphis was indeed FedEx’s only international hub, then that would sustain venue for the\ncounts relying on packages with international destinations. But no one testified that Memphis is\nthe only international hub; a witness just said that it is “an international hub.” Id. at 414\n(emphasis added). Nor did anyone testify about FedEx’s typical shipping procedures for\ninternational packages. So the counts relying on international packages are no different than the\nothers.\n\n In sum, it is possible that some of the packages at issue went through the Memphis hub.\nBut that is not enough. The government must prove venue count-by-count, and to do that it must\npresent enough evidence to allow a rational juror to find venue by a preponderance of the\nevidence. See Wood, 364 F.3d at 713–14; United States v. Greene, 995 F.2d 793, 801–02 (8th\nCir. 1993). No evidence cannot be a preponderance of the evidence. And there is simply no\nevidence, direct or circumstantial, that any specific package implicated in these counts ever\nmoved through the Western District of Tennessee. Cf. Johnson v. Coyle, 200 F.3d 987, 994–95\n(6th Cir. 2000) (holding that no rational juror could have found the defendant guilty of\nkidnapping when the government did not present any evidence of kidnapping as defined by state\nlaw). Accordingly, no rational juror could have found that the government proved venue for\nCounts 1–5, 7–12, 14–18, and 20. We must dismiss Petlechkov’s convictions on these counts.\n\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 9\n\n\n C.\n\n Petlechkov did not argue that we should dismiss with prejudice—i.e., without giving the\ngovernment a chance to try again. And the government did not address the issue either. But we\nhave the discretion and obligation to explain the effect of our decision. See United States v.\nTaylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336 (1988).\n\n This issue turns on the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Double\nJeopardy Clause bars a retrial after an acquittal. U.S. Const. amend. V; Evans v. Michigan, 568\nU.S. 313, 318 (2013). An “acquittal” is “any ruling that the prosecution’s proof is insufficient to\nestablish criminal liability for an offense.” Evans, 568 U.S. at 318. In contrast, procedural\ndismissals “unrelated to factual guilt or innocence” do not implicate double jeopardy concerns.\nId. at 319. For instance, if a defendant successfully moves for dismissal based on pre-indictment\ndelay, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar another prosecution against him. United States\nv. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 95 (1978).\n\n A dismissal on venue grounds does not qualify as an “acquittal” for double jeopardy\npurposes. Though venue is a factual issue that the government must prove, it is not an element\nof the underlying criminal offense. United States v. Kaytso, 868 F.2d 1020, 1021 (9th Cir.\n1988). Accordingly, at least three of our sister circuits have held that a venue dismissal is not an\n“acquittal.” Kaytso, 868 F.2d at 1021; Haney v. Burgess, 799 F.2d 661, 663–64 (11th Cir. 1986);\nWilkett v. United States, 655 F.2d 1007, 1011–12 (10th Cir. 1981) (“Venue is wholly neutral; it\nis a question of procedure, more than anything else, and it does not either prove or disprove the\nguilt of the accused.”).\n\n This is true even for mail fraud, where the test for venue—that mail moved through the\ndistrict—resembles a substantive element of the offense. See Wood, 364 F.3d at 710, 713 (citing\n18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 3237(a)). To prove the substantive offense, the government established that\nPetlechkov’s fraudulent scheme relied on mailing packages, a fact that he does not challenge.\nBut proving venue required something more. The government needed to prove where those\npackages went. In this case, it had to prove that they moved through the Western District of\nTennessee. The government failed to make that showing, but that failure does not change the\n\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 10\n\n\nfact that Petlechkov committed mail fraud. Thus, we are dismissing the seventeen counts\nbecause of “reasons required by the Constitution or laws . . . unrelated to factual guilt or\ninnocence.” Scott, 437 U.S. at 98 n.11. That means a dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.\n\n * * *\n\n We affirm Petlechkov’s convictions on Counts 6, 13, and 19, and dismiss all remaining\ncounts without prejudice. We need not address Petlechkov’s challenges to his sentence and the\nrestitution award because the district court will need to both resentence Petlechkov and\nrecalculate that award. See Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 412–13, 419–20 (1990);\nWood, 364 F.3d at 714.\n\n We AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with\nthis opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dimitar PETLECHKOV, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-01\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0082p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5991\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n DIMITAR PETLECHKOV, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.\\n No. 2:17-cr-20344-1—Jon Phipps McCalla, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 1, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Michael J. Stengel, STENGEL LAW FIRM, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant.\\nDavid Pritchard, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Memphis, Tennessee, for\\nAppellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Proper venue in a criminal case is an “essential part[] of a free\\nand good government.” The Federal Farmer, in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 230 (Herbert J.\\nStoring ed. 1981). The government failed to meet its constitutional obligation to prove venue for\\nmost of the charges it brought against Dimitar Petlechkov. Accordingly, we affirm in part,\\nreverse in part, and remand.\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 2\\n\\n\\n I.\\n\\n FedEx provides shipping discounts to high-volume customers. In order to obtain such a\\ndiscount, Dimitar Petlechkov lied to FedEx and claimed he was a vendor for a high-volume\\nshipper. He used those discounted rates to offer shipping services to third parties, pocketing the\\nprofit margin between what he charged the third parties and what he paid FedEx. He shipped\\nnearly 30,000 packages this way until FedEx finally caught him.\\n\\n The government charged Petlechkov with 20 counts of mail fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 1341.\\nA jury convicted him on each count. The district court sentenced Petlechkov to 37 months in\\nprison and ordered him to pay approximately $800,000 in restitution. He now appeals his\\nconvictions, sentence, and restitution award.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Petlechkov challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his mail fraud\\nconvictions. On appeal, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light\\nmost favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential\\nelements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319\\n(1979).\\n\\n To convict Petlechkov of mail fraud, the government had to prove that he devised a\\nscheme to defraud, used the mails in furtherance of that scheme, and intended to deprive the\\nvictim of money or property. 18 U.S.C. § 1341; United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 310\\n(6th Cir. 2010). A fraudulent scheme must include a material misrepresentation, which is a\\nmisrepresentation that could influence the decision of a “person[] of ordinary prudence and\\ncomprehension.” United States v. Jamieson, 427 F.3d 394, 415–16 (6th Cir. 2005). Materiality\\nis the only element Petlechkov disputes on appeal.\\n\\n Petlechkov concedes that he made a misrepresentation but contends that it was not\\nmaterial. His misrepresentation was simple: he called FedEx’s account manager for General\\nDynamics—one of FedEx’s larger clients—and claimed he was a General Dynamics vendor\\nentitled to its discounted shipping rate. Soon afterwards, FedEx linked Petlechkov’s account to\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 3\\n\\n\\nGeneral Dynamics, and he was able to ship packages at its rate. All it took was a single phone\\ncall. Petlechkov makes two arguments for why his phone call could not have influenced a\\n“person[] of ordinary prudence and comprehension.” Id. at 415–16. First, he claims vendors\\nwere not actually entitled to discounts under General Dynamics’s contract with FedEx. And this\\nleads to his second argument: that federal law prohibits the unwritten discounts he received.\\nThus, according to Petlechkov, the FedEx employees who signed off on his discount request\\nwere not ordinary, prudent people—his bald assertion that he was a General Dynamics vendor\\nshould not have convinced FedEx to give him a discount.\\n\\n Petlechkov’s arguments fail. First, whatever discounts the General Dynamics agreement\\nrequired FedEx to provide, nothing in the record suggests that the agreement barred FedEx from\\nbeing more generous than required. And indeed, FedEx’s standard “operating procedure” was to\\nextend a customer’s discounts to its vendors. R. 75, Pg. ID 384–85, 397–98. Because FedEx\\nhad such a policy, an ordinary, prudent employee would follow it. Thus, Petlechkov’s false\\nstatement was capable of influencing FedEx’s decision. And indeed, it actually influenced\\nFedEx’s decision—FedEx gave him a discount that lasted for several years. The fact that\\nPetlechkov’s false statement caused its intended result is strong evidence that it was material.\\nSee United States v. Bohn, 281 F. App’x 430, 440 (6th Cir. 2008); Jamieson, 427 F.3d at 416.\\n\\n Petlechkov’s second argument fares no better. He claims that FedEx violated the\\nSarbanes-Oxley Act by extending him a discount. See generally Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,\\nPub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745. And he argues that a person of ordinary prudence would not\\nhave granted him a discount that violated federal law. But Petlechkov neither cites Sarbanes-\\nOxley nor offers any legal analysis of it, and it is not our job to construct a legal argument for\\nhim. See McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995–96 (6th Cir. 1997). Instead, Petlechkov\\nmakes a purely factual argument. He relies entirely on the testimony of a FedEx employee,\\nAndrew Newborn. Thus, Petlechkov’s argument turns on interpretation of that testimony.\\n\\n Newborn did testify that in some circumstances unwritten discounts violate Sarbanes-\\nOxley. But he never said that unwritten discounts like Petlechkov’s—contained in a written\\nagreement but extended to someone not named in that agreement—violated Sarbanes-Oxley.\\nAnd more specifically, Newborn never said that Petlechkov’s specific vendor discount violated\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 4\\n\\n\\nSarbanes-Oxley. Despite Petlechkov’s arguments to the contrary, a rational juror could have\\nfound his misrepresentation material.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Next, Petlechkov argues that, even if he is in fact guilty, we should still dismiss the case\\nagainst him because the government failed to prove that venue was proper in the Western\\nDistrict of Tennessee.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n The government argues we should not reach the merits of Petlechkov’s venue objection\\nbecause he “waived his challenge to venue by failing to raise it pre-trial.” Appellee Br. at 10. In\\ndoing so, the government’s brief bounces back and forth between the concepts of waiver and\\nforfeiture. Though attorneys (and even courts) often use these concepts “interchangeably,” they\\nare distinct. Brenay v. Schartow, 709 F. App’x 331, 336 n.1 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing United States\\nv. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993)). As the Supreme Court has explained, “forfeiture is the\\nfailure to make the timely assertion of a right,” while “waiver is the intentional relinquishment or\\nabandonment of a known right.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 733 (internal quotation marks omitted).\\nThe government’s brief exclusively uses the term “waiver” rather than “forfeiture,” and the\\ngovernment asserts that Petlechkov’s attorney “acknowledged to the government that venue was\\nproper.” Appellee Br. at 10. So the government does appear to be making a waiver argument.\\n\\n But the government has not shown that Petlechkov’s attorney can singlehandedly waive\\nhis client’s right to be tried in a proper venue. The Supreme Court has distinguished between\\n“tactical” rights (which can be waived by the defendant’s attorney) and “fundamental” rights\\n(which can only be waived by the defendant himself). Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242,\\n250–51 (2008); see also McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 1508 (2018). And as Justice\\nScalia explained in Gonzalez, distinguishing between tactical and fundamental is no easy task.\\nSee Gonzalez, 553 U.S. at 256–57 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (“Depending on the\\ncircumstances, waiving any right can be a tactical decision. . . . I know of no objective criterion\\nfor ranking rights.”).\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 5\\n\\n\\n But ultimately it does not matter because there is no evidence that either Petlechkov or\\nhis attorney “intentional[ly] relinquish[ed]” Petlechkov’s right to proper venue. Olano, 507 U.S.\\nat 733. The government relies solely on a purported phone call with Petlechkov’s attorney—a\\nconversation that “left [the government] with the impression” that a venue challenge was not\\nforthcoming. R. 75-1, Pg. ID 523. The details of the alleged conversation are not in the record.\\nPetlechkov’s attorney testified that he had “no independent recollection of the conversation,” id.\\nat 532, and the government admitted to the district court that there “was by no means a formal\\nstipulation” on the venue issue. Id. at 523. The government, therefore, has not met its burden of\\nproving the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment” of proper venue. See Olano, 507 U.S.\\nat 733.\\n\\n To the extent the government is claiming forfeiture, that argument fails as well. Again,\\nforfeiture “is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right.” Id. Petlechkov did not object to\\nvenue until after the close of the government’s proof at trial, and typically venue objections are\\nforfeited if not raised before trial. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(A)(i). But there is an exception\\nto this general rule. Defendants are only required to raise venue objections before trial if they\\nhave notice of the alleged venue defect. Id. Thus, if a venue defect is not “apparent on the face\\nof the indictment” and the “defendant does not have notice of the defect through other means,”\\nthen he does not need to object before trial. United States v. Grenoble, 413 F.3d 569, 573 (6th\\nCir. 2005). In those circumstances, the defendant can presume that the government will offer\\nevidence at trial proving that venue is proper. But if the government fails to meet its burden at\\ntrial, then the defendant is free to raise the objection. Id.\\n\\n Here, the government concedes that there was no venue defect apparent on the face of the\\nindictment and does not argue that Petlechkov himself had some other reason to know of a defect\\nbefore trial. Instead, the government claims the purported concession of venue by Petlechkov’s\\nattorney shows that Petlechkov was on notice of a venue defect. The government cites only one\\ncase: United States v. Adams, 803 F.2d 722, 1986 WL 17714 (6th Cir. 1986) (table). But there,\\nthe defendant’s attorney “conceded [on appeal] that he knew well before trial” the basis for a\\nvenue objection and had failed to raise it. Id. at *9. Here, in contrast, Petlechkov’s attorney\\ncontests that he conceded venue below and does not make any concession on appeal either.\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 6\\n\\n\\n Accordingly, as the government has not shown that Petlechkov waived or forfeited his\\nvenue objection, we must address the merits of Petlechkov’s venue argument.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n The Constitution requires that criminal defendants be tried in the place where they\\ncommitted their alleged crimes. U.S. Const. art. 3, § 2, cl. 3; id. amend. VI. Determining proper\\nvenue is a two-step process. If the criminal statute has a specific venue provision, then courts\\nmust accept that congressional choice (assuming it is otherwise constitutionally permissible). If\\nnot, then courts determine the proper venue based on “the nature of the crime alleged and the\\nlocation of the act or acts constituting it.” Travis v. United States, 364 U.S. 631, 635 (1961); see\\nalso United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 279 (1999).\\n\\n The government says we should skip to the second step and analyze the “nature of the\\ncrime alleged.” Travis, 364 U.S. at 635. But that is wrong: mail fraud has a specific statutory\\nvenue provision. It provides, in pertinent part, that offenses “involving the use of the mails” can\\nbe “prosecuted in any district from, through, or into which . . . mail matter . . . moves.”\\n18 U.S.C. § 3237(a). As this circuit has explained, “[a] plain reading of the text” shows “that\\nvenue in a mail fraud case is limited to districts where the mail is deposited, received, or moves\\nthrough.” United States v. Wood, 364 F.3d 704, 713 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a))\\n(emphasis added).\\n\\n The government must prove proper venue for each count by a preponderance of the\\nevidence. United States v. Beddow, 957 F.2d 1330, 1335 (6th Cir. 1992). And in this case, each\\ncount was tied to a specific package. Thus, the government had to prove each specific package\\nmoved through the Western District of Tennessee. Since the jury found that the government did\\nso, Petlechkov concedes that we can only reverse if no rational juror could have come to that\\nconclusion. United States v. Kernell, 667 F.3d 746, 750 (6th Cir. 2012); United States v. Cooper,\\n40 F. App’x 39, 40 (6th Cir. 2002).\\n\\n Counts 6, 13, and 19. The evidence showed that the packages underlying these three\\ncounts were all sent from Munford, Tennessee, which is in the Western District of Tennessee.\\nThe sender for each package was Aser Gruppe International. Aser Gruppe’s CEO Stephen\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 7\\n\\n\\nOsborn testified that his company generally shipped its packages from a FedEx drop box in\\nMunford. Though Osborn (understandably) did not have a specific recollection of the three\\npackages at issue, the government does not need to present direct evidence of venue. Instead, the\\ngovernment can prove venue based on a reasonable inference from circumstantial evidence.\\nUnited States v. Charlton, 372 F.2d 663, 664–65 (6th Cir. 1967); 2 Charles A. Wright & Arthur\\nR. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Criminal § 307. Courts have found proof of venue in\\nmail fraud cases based on general practices and circumstantial evidence like we have here. See,\\ne.g., United States v. Holt, 899 F.2d 15, 1990 WL 37613, at *2 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)\\n(table) (finding proof of venue in a mail fraud case based on a reasonable inference from\\ncircumstantial evidence, even though the sender did not testify about the packages at issue);\\nUnited States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367, 400–01 (5th Cir. 1981). Since a rational juror could\\ninfer that Osborn followed his general practice and dropped the packages at the FedEx drop box\\nin Munford, a rational juror could have subsequently found that the government proved venue\\nfor those Munford-related counts—6, 13, and 19. We affirm Petlechkov’s convictions on those\\ncounts.\\n\\n Counts 1–5, 7–12, 14–18, and 20. The packages underlying each of these counts were\\nsent from, and delivered to, destinations outside of the Western District of Tennessee. So to\\nprove venue for these counts, the government needed to show that the packages moved through\\nthe Western District of Tennessee on the way to their destinations. Wood, 364 F.3d at 713.\\n\\n The government’s venue argument for these counts relies on how FedEx’s shipping\\nprocess works. FedEx packages pass through hubs, where employees sort them by destination\\nand then send them on their way. See Tony Vieira, Why Use A Hub and Spoke System, FedEx\\n(April 16, 2009), https://about.van.fedex.com/blog/why-use-a-hub-and-spoke-system. The only\\nhub mentioned during trial was the one in Memphis, Tennessee, which is in the Western District.\\nBut the government presented no evidence tying any particular package to that Memphis hub.\\nYet, the government argues, the jury could have reasonably inferred that each of the packages\\nmoved through it.\\n\\n But the government slices the record too thin. No witness testified that Memphis was\\nFedEx’s only hub or even the primary hub. Indeed, the record shows that FedEx has “several\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 8\\n\\n\\nhubs” outside of Memphis, even though they were not specifically named. R. 75, Pg. ID 411.\\nAnd unlike Counts 6, 13, and 19, there is no evidence of typical shipping practices, e.g., that\\nFedEx typically sent packages from certain locations through its Memphis hub. Although the\\nrecord reflects that FedEx’s worldwide headquarters is in Memphis, no witness said that means\\nany particular package moved through FedEx’s separate Memphis hub.\\n\\n The government has one final argument that applies only to the packages with\\ninternational destinations. According to the government, the only international hub proven at\\ntrial was the Memphis hub. Thus, the government argues, the jury could have inferred that any\\npackages shipped abroad must have moved through Memphis. If the evidence showed that\\nMemphis was indeed FedEx’s only international hub, then that would sustain venue for the\\ncounts relying on packages with international destinations. But no one testified that Memphis is\\nthe only international hub; a witness just said that it is “an international hub.” Id. at 414\\n(emphasis added). Nor did anyone testify about FedEx’s typical shipping procedures for\\ninternational packages. So the counts relying on international packages are no different than the\\nothers.\\n\\n In sum, it is possible that some of the packages at issue went through the Memphis hub.\\nBut that is not enough. The government must prove venue count-by-count, and to do that it must\\npresent enough evidence to allow a rational juror to find venue by a preponderance of the\\nevidence. See Wood, 364 F.3d at 713–14; United States v. Greene, 995 F.2d 793, 801–02 (8th\\nCir. 1993). No evidence cannot be a preponderance of the evidence. And there is simply no\\nevidence, direct or circumstantial, that any specific package implicated in these counts ever\\nmoved through the Western District of Tennessee. Cf. Johnson v. Coyle, 200 F.3d 987, 994–95\\n(6th Cir. 2000) (holding that no rational juror could have found the defendant guilty of\\nkidnapping when the government did not present any evidence of kidnapping as defined by state\\nlaw). Accordingly, no rational juror could have found that the government proved venue for\\nCounts 1–5, 7–12, 14–18, and 20. We must dismiss Petlechkov’s convictions on these counts.\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 9\\n\\n\\n C.\\n\\n Petlechkov did not argue that we should dismiss with prejudice—i.e., without giving the\\ngovernment a chance to try again. And the government did not address the issue either. But we\\nhave the discretion and obligation to explain the effect of our decision. See United States v.\\nTaylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336 (1988).\\n\\n This issue turns on the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Double\\nJeopardy Clause bars a retrial after an acquittal. U.S. Const. amend. V; Evans v. Michigan, 568\\nU.S. 313, 318 (2013). An “acquittal” is “any ruling that the prosecution’s proof is insufficient to\\nestablish criminal liability for an offense.” Evans, 568 U.S. at 318. In contrast, procedural\\ndismissals “unrelated to factual guilt or innocence” do not implicate double jeopardy concerns.\\nId. at 319. For instance, if a defendant successfully moves for dismissal based on pre-indictment\\ndelay, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar another prosecution against him. United States\\nv. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 95 (1978).\\n\\n A dismissal on venue grounds does not qualify as an “acquittal” for double jeopardy\\npurposes. Though venue is a factual issue that the government must prove, it is not an element\\nof the underlying criminal offense. United States v. Kaytso, 868 F.2d 1020, 1021 (9th Cir.\\n1988). Accordingly, at least three of our sister circuits have held that a venue dismissal is not an\\n“acquittal.” Kaytso, 868 F.2d at 1021; Haney v. Burgess, 799 F.2d 661, 663–64 (11th Cir. 1986);\\nWilkett v. United States, 655 F.2d 1007, 1011–12 (10th Cir. 1981) (“Venue is wholly neutral; it\\nis a question of procedure, more than anything else, and it does not either prove or disprove the\\nguilt of the accused.”).\\n\\n This is true even for mail fraud, where the test for venue—that mail moved through the\\ndistrict—resembles a substantive element of the offense. See Wood, 364 F.3d at 710, 713 (citing\\n18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 3237(a)). To prove the substantive offense, the government established that\\nPetlechkov’s fraudulent scheme relied on mailing packages, a fact that he does not challenge.\\nBut proving venue required something more. The government needed to prove where those\\npackages went. In this case, it had to prove that they moved through the Western District of\\nTennessee. The government failed to make that showing, but that failure does not change the\\n\\f No. 18-5991 United States v. Petlechkov Page 10\\n\\n\\nfact that Petlechkov committed mail fraud. Thus, we are dismissing the seventeen counts\\nbecause of “reasons required by the Constitution or laws . . . unrelated to factual guilt or\\ninnocence.” Scott, 437 U.S. at 98 n.11. That means a dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.\\n\\n * * *\\n\\n We affirm Petlechkov’s convictions on Counts 6, 13, and 19, and dismiss all remaining\\ncounts without prejudice. We need not address Petlechkov’s challenges to his sentence and the\\nrestitution award because the district court will need to both resentence Petlechkov and\\nrecalculate that award. See Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 412–13, 419–20 (1990);\\nWood, 364 F.3d at 714.\\n\\n We AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with\\nthis opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2070,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4616650,"string":"4,616,650"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Lewis COLEMAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Ronald Coleman, Jr."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-03"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1083"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Boggs, Kethledge, Nalbandian\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BOGGS, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0084p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-1083\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n RONALD LEWIS COLEMAN, JR., │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.\\n No. 1:17-cr-00136-1—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: January 17, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 3, 2019\\n\\n Before: BOGGS, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Clare E. Freeman, THE FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP, P.L.L.C., La Porte, Texas,\\nfor Appellant. Sally J. Berens, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids,\\nMichigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Clare E. Freeman, THE FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP,\\nP.L.L.C., La Porte, Texas, for Appellant. Davin M. Reust, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\\nOFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Defendant Ronald Coleman appeals the district court’s denial of\\na motion to suppress the fruits of a warrant for vehicle tracking and a residential search warrant\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 2\\n\\n\\non the grounds that the warrants lacked probable cause and that law enforcement’s installation of\\nthe vehicle tracker violated the Fourth Amendment. Because the warrants were amply supported\\nby probable cause and the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when installing the\\ntracker, we affirm.\\n\\n I\\n\\n On March 9, 2017, law-enforcement agents began investigating Eddie Powell, a drug\\ndealer, and his sources of narcotics. A cooperating defendant1 identified one of those sources as\\nthe defendant, Ronald Coleman. Officers began investigating Coleman and observed his two\\nautomobiles, a brown Trailblazer and a white Buick Enclave, in connection with suspected drug\\nsales to Powell. Specifically, on April 7, 2017, law-enforcement officers observed an individual\\nmatching Coleman’s description arrive at Powell’s house, get out of Coleman’s Enclave, enter\\nthe house, and leave three minutes later. Then, four days later, Coleman arrived at Powell’s\\nhouse in the Trailblazer and sold cocaine to the cooperating defendant.\\n\\n Around this time, a law-enforcement agent checked Coleman’s criminal history and\\ndetermined he had felony convictions in 2006 and 2009 for delivery or manufacture of a\\ncontrolled substance. The agent also discovered that both vehicles were registered to Coleman’s\\nfather and observed that, in his experience, drug traffickers frequently register their vehicles in\\nthe names of family or friends to conceal their identities. The agent detailed all of these findings,\\nas well as the facts from the suspected drug sales, in a supporting affidavit and, on April 19,\\n2017, obtained tracking warrants from a federal magistrate judge for Coleman’s Enclave and\\nTrailblazer on the belief that tracking those vehicles would provide evidence of their\\ninvolvement in the distribution of narcotics.2\\n\\n On April 20, 2017, an ATF agent attached the tracking devices to Coleman’s Enclave and\\nTrailblazer. To apply the trackers, the agent went to Coleman’s condominium on East Springtree\\n\\n\\n 1The cooperating defendant was a reliable informant and conducted multiple controlled buys associated\\nwith this case.\\n 2While the agent obtained vehicle-tracking warrants for both the Enclave and the Trailblazer, Coleman is\\nchallenging only the warrant for the Enclave.\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 3\\n\\n\\nLane SW in Grand Rapids, which is part of the Silverleaf Condominium Complex, a collection\\nof approximately 40 residential units scattered across several streets within the complex.\\n\\n There is no gate or fence at the entrance to the Silverleaf complex, but there is a small\\nsign that says: “PRIVATE PROPERTY.” The sign, however, does not forbid outside visitors\\nand anyone can drive onto the streets of the condominium complex unimpeded. Residents are\\nable to have visitors without requesting permission from neighbors, the Postal Service delivers\\nmail to mailboxes inside the complex, and there is a single trash-collection business that serves\\nall units.\\n\\n Coleman’s condominium unit is roughly a mile down the road from the entrance of the\\ncomplex, alongside other similar buildings. His particular unit is in a building shared by three\\nother families, and his driveway is shared with a neighboring family. The entire driveway\\nconsists of a single concrete slab leading to Coleman’s garage and the garage of Coleman’s\\nneighbor. No gate, fence, or hedgerow surrounds the condo, and it is common for residents to\\nwalk by each other’s vehicles over the course of a day.\\n\\n To attach the tracking devices, the agent parked in a public parking spot across the street\\nfrom Coleman’s condo and walked up to Coleman’s Enclave, which was parked in front of his\\ngarage a few feet onto the driveway. Coleman’s Trailblazer was across the street, in a parking\\nspot shared by residents and guests.\\n\\n On May 4 and May 10, 2017, Coleman sold cocaine to Powell. During the May 10 sale,\\nagents observed Coleman leave his condo, enter the Enclave, and get out of the Enclave at\\nPowell’s home. Agents also watched the GPS tracking data from the Enclave vehicle tracker,\\nand the data appeared to show that Coleman traveled directly from his condo to Powell’s house.\\nBased on this information, agents applied for a warrant to search Coleman’s condo for evidence\\nof drug trafficking and money laundering. On May 23, 2017, a different federal magistrate judge\\nthan the one who had signed the tracking warrants signed the condo search warrant.\\n\\n On May 31, 2017, agents executed the condo warrant, seizing approximately 500 grams\\nof cocaine, a firearm, and documents and property indicative of money laundering. Agents then\\ninterviewed Coleman and he admitted possession and ownership of the cocaine and a firearm.\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 4\\n\\n\\nLater that day, the government filed a complaint against Coleman and, on June 27, 2017, he was\\nindicted on three counts of a five-count indictment, charging him with conspiracy to distribute\\ncocaine, possession with intent to deliver cocaine, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.\\n\\n On July 25, 2017, Coleman moved to suppress the fruits of the vehicle-tracking and\\nresidential search warrants, arguing that the warrants contained insufficient probable cause and\\nthat the agents attached the tracking device on Coleman’s Enclave in violation of the Fourth\\nAmendment. After receiving the evidence and arguments, the district court held that (1) the\\nEnclave warrant was supported by probable cause; (2) Coleman’s driveway was not within the\\ncurtilage of his home; (3) the residential search warrant was supported by probable cause; and\\n(4) even if the warrants were not supported by probable cause, ATF agents executed them in\\ngood faith.\\n\\n On September 12, 2017, Coleman pled guilty to the three counts against him by way of a\\nconditional plea agreement. The plea agreement allowed Coleman to appeal the denial of his\\nmotion to suppress. On January 22, 2018, the district court sentenced Coleman to 120 months of\\nimprisonment.\\n\\n II\\n\\n Coleman first argues that the warrant for installing a tracking device on his Buick\\nEnclave was not supported by probable cause. We disagree.\\n\\n According to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c)–(d), a magistrate judge must\\nissue a tracking-device warrant if a supporting affidavit establishes probable cause to believe that\\nthe device will uncover evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of a crime. Here, the affidavit had\\nestablished numerous facts supporting the notion that the use of a tracking device on Coleman’s\\nEnclave could uncover further evidence of wrongdoing:\\n\\n • A confidential informant identified Coleman as a current drug supplier to\\n Powell.\\n • Authorities had been investigating four drug sales at Powell’s residence,\\n one of which involved Coleman dropping off cocaine for Powell.\\n • A law-enforcement agent observed an individual matching Coleman’s\\n description drive to Powell’s house in the Enclave, stay only four minutes,\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 5\\n\\n\\n and leave, activity that could be consistent with the driver engaging in\\n illegal drug sales.\\n • Coleman had two prior felony convictions for delivery/manufacture of\\n controlled substances.\\n • A Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) check on the vehicle\\n identified Coleman’s father as the Enclave’s owner.\\n\\nCourts have upheld vehicle-tracking warrants based on much weaker factual allegations than\\nthese. See, e.g., United States v. Faulkner, 826 F.3d 1139, 1145 (8th Cir. 2016) (upholding a\\nvehicle-tracking warrant where a confidential informant told police the defendant brought heroin\\nfrom Chicago to Minneapolis, stayed at two addresses, and drove two vehicles, but where no one\\nhad directly observed either vehicle involved in suspected drug activity); United States v.\\nMcNeal, 818 F.3d 141, 150 (4th Cir. 2016) (upholding a tracking warrant where affidavit\\nestablished merely that the vehicle was registered to suspect’s mother and driven to case banks,\\nand where an informant tipped authorities the vehicle was used in bank robberies). Accordingly,\\nwe hold that the tracking warrant was supported by probable cause.\\n\\n III\\n\\n Next, Coleman claims that authorities violated his Fourth Amendment rights when an\\nATF agent entered his condominium’s driveway to install the GPS tracking device on his\\nEnclave. Coleman alleges two Fourth Amendment violations resulting from the agent’s actions:\\nthe first when the agent entered Coleman’s condominium complex despite there being a sign\\nreading “PRIVATE PROPERTY,” and the second when the agent walked onto Coleman’s\\ndriveway to install the GPS tracker.\\n\\n “When the government gains information by physically intruding into one’s home, a\\nsearch within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has undoubtedly occurred.”\\nMorgan v. Fairchild Cty., Ohio, 903 F.3d 553, 561 (6th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and\\ncitations omitted). “But it is not just the physical house that receives the Amendment’s\\nprotection. The curtilage—the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home—is\\ntreated as part of [the] home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Ibid. (internal quotations\\nmarks and citations omitted). “The protection afforded the curtilage is essentially a protection of\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 6\\n\\n\\nfamilies and personal privacy in an area intimately linked to the home, both physically and\\npsychologically, where privacy expectations are most heightened.” Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct\\n1663, 1670 (2018). Courts have identified four factors as a guidepost to determining whether an\\nindividual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area, placing it within the home’s\\ncurtilage: (1) proximity to the home; (2) whether the area is within an enclosure around the\\nhome; (3) uses of the area; and (4) steps taken to protect the area from observation by passersby.\\nUnited States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987). It is a “fact-intensive analysis” conducted on a\\ncase-by-case basis. Morgan, 903 F.3d at 561. As the proponent of the motion to suppress,\\nColeman “bears the burden of establishing that the challenged search violated his Fourth\\nAmendment rights.” United States v. Witherspoon, 467 F. App’x 486, 490 (6th Cir. 2012).\\n\\n Coleman first argues that the agent’s entry onto the condominium complex itself violated\\nhis Fourth Amendment rights. We disagree. Though the condominium complex had a\\n“PRIVATE PROPERTY” sign at its entrance, anyone could drive into the complex without\\nexpress permission. No gate prevented outsiders from entering, and the condo association had\\nnot taken any effort to keep non-residents out. The sign itself did not require permission to enter,\\nprohibit outside visitors, or even state “no trespassing.” Accordingly, the agent did not violate\\nColeman’s Fourth Amendment rights merely by entering the condominium complex. See, e.g.,\\nUnited States v. Dillard, 438 F.3d 675, 682 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that defendant had no\\nreasonable expectation of privacy in the common area of his building’s duplex that was unlocked\\nand open to the public because he “made no effort to maintain his privacy in the common\\nhallway and stairway” and therefore “did nothing to indicate to the officers that they were not\\nwelcome in the common areas”).\\n\\n Whether the ATF agent intruded onto the curtilage of Coleman’s building by entering his\\ndriveway, however, is a closer question. Coleman places heavy emphasis on the Supreme\\nCourt’s recent decision in Collins in arguing that such an intrusion occurred. In Collins, police\\nwere investigating a motorcycle thought to be stolen by the defendant, Ryan Collins. 138 S. Ct.\\nat 1668. An officer tracked down the vehicle to Collins’s girlfriend’s residence and walked onto\\nthe property to the top of the driveway to examine the vehicle, which was under a tarp. Ibid.\\nThe officer then pulled off the tarp, ran a search of the license plate and vehicle identification\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 7\\n\\n\\nnumbers, and discovered that the motorcycle was stolen. Ibid. After gathering this information,\\nthe officer took a photograph of the uncovered motorcycle, put the tarp back on, left the\\nproperty, and returned to his car to wait for Collins to return. Ibid. At no point in this process\\ndid the officer have a warrant. Ibid. The Court described the driveway as follows:\\n\\n [T]he driveway runs alongside the front lawn and up a few yards past the front\\n perimeter of the house. The top portion of the driveway that sits behind the front\\n perimeter of the house is enclosed on two sides by a brick wall about the height of\\n a car and on a third side by the house. A side door provides direct access between\\n this partially enclosed section of the driveway and the house. A visitor\\n endeavoring to reach the front door of the house would have to walk partway up\\n the driveway, but would turn off before entering the enclosure and instead\\n proceed up a set of steps leading to the front porch. When [the officer] searched\\n the motorcycle, it was parked inside this partially enclosed top portion of the\\n driveway that abuts the house.\\n\\nId. at 1670–71. The Court held that, “[j]ust like the front porch, side garden, or area outside the\\nfront window, the driveway enclosure where [the officer] searched the motorcycle constitutes an\\narea adjacent to the home and to which the activity of home life extends, and so is properly\\nconsidered curtilage.” Ibid. (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, the\\nCourt found that the officer had violated Collins’s Fourth Amendment rights by intruding onto\\nthe building’s curtilage.\\n\\n The facts in Collins, however, are quite different from the facts here. In Collins, the\\nportion of the driveway where the motorcycle sat was past the front perimeter of the home,\\nenclosed on three sides (two by a brick wall, one by the home itself), and not on the way to the\\nfront door of the residence. 138 S. Ct. at 1670–71. Coleman’s Enclave, in contrast, was sitting\\nin front of the residence, was not enclosed by anything, and was on the way to the entrance of his\\nhome. The Collins motorcycle was also covered with a tarp; Coleman’s car was not. Finally, the\\nColeman driveway was in fact shared with other families and other condo residents frequently\\nwalked past cars parked in front of condo units. See United States v. Jones, 893 F.3d 66, 72\\n(2d Cir. 2018) (“[Collins] . . . has no effect on [defendant’s] appeal, which fails because the\\ndriveway in which [defendant’s] vehicle was parked was the shared driveway of tenants in two\\nmulti-family buildings and was not within the curtilage of [defendant’s] private home.”).\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 8\\n\\n\\n Though prior to the Collins ruling, the Sixth Circuit cases of United States v. Galaviz,\\n645 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2011), and United States v. Estes, 343 F. App’x 97 (6th Cir. 2011),\\nsurvive Collins and are factually more on point. Both cases involved driveways with similar\\ncharacteristics to the one here: adjacent to a home, not enclosed, abutting a sidewalk or alley,\\nwith no steps taken to obstruct the view of passersby. Galaviz, 645 F.3d at 356; Estes, 343 F.\\nApp’x at 101. In both instances, this court held that the officers did not intrude upon the\\nbuilding’s curtilage by entering the driveway. In Estes, we held that “at least three of the factors\\nin Dunn undercut a finding that the driveway represents curtilage” because “the area was not\\nclosed,” “defendant had not taken any steps to protect the area from observation by people\\npassing by,” and “it was used as a point of entry into the residence.” Estes, F. App’x at 101\\n(internal quotation marks omitted). In Galaviz, the court found that, while “the driveway was\\ndirectly adjacent to the house,” it “was not enclosed by a fence or other barrier and was short,\\nwith the portion of the driveway where [the defendant’s] car was parked directly abutting the\\npublic sidewalk” and that “no apparent steps were taken by the residents of the house to protect\\nthe driveway from observation by passersby—no hedges or bushes obstructed the view of the\\ndriveway from the sidewalk or street, for example.” Galaviz, 645 F.3d at 356. Those same\\nanalyses would apply to the driveway in question here. While the proximity of the driveway to\\nthe residence here may lean in favor of considering it to be curtilage, the other Dunn factors—\\nwhether the area is within an enclosure around the home, the uses of the area, and the steps taken\\nto protect the area from observation by passersby—all point toward the opposite conclusion.\\n\\n Accordingly, we hold that the ATF agent did not intrude upon the curtilage of Coleman’s\\nresidence in order to install the vehicle tracker and therefore did not run afoul of the Fourth\\nAmendment.\\n\\n IV\\n\\n Finally, Coleman argues that there was insufficient probable cause for the magistrate\\njudge to issue a search warrant for Coleman’s condo. “The job of a magistrate judge presented\\nwith a search warrant application is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether,\\ngiven all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit . . . , there is a fair probability that\\ncontraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” United States v. Brown,\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 9\\n\\n\\n828 F.3d 375, 381 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). There must be\\na “nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought.” United States v. Carpenter,\\n360 F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc). However, a magistrate issuing a search warrant\\n“may infer that drug traffickers use their homes to store drugs and otherwise further their drug\\ntrafficking.” United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683, 687 (6th Cir. 2008). This reflects the\\nreality that, “in the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live.”\\nUnited States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 975 (6th Cir. 1998) (citation and alteration omitted).\\n\\n Here, the affidavit in support of the residential search warrant established that Coleman\\nwas an active drug trafficker, that the Springtree Lane address was Coleman’s home, and that\\nboth of Coleman’s vehicles were regularly parked there. According to the affidavit, agents had\\nconducted three controlled buys of cocaine from Coleman and observed him drive directly from\\nhis condo to the site of the most recent buy, less than two weeks before the warrant issued. This\\nwas sufficient to establish that Coleman was an active drug trafficker at the time the warrant\\nissued and to provide a reasonable inference that he transported narcotics from his residence to\\nthe location of the cocaine sale. See, e.g., United States v. Bucio-Cabrales, 635 F. App’x 324,\\n334 (6th Cir. 2016) (evidence defendant traveled to two addresses—one of which was home—\\nprior to narcotics sales supported inference he was storing narcotics at one residence); United\\nStates v. Gunter, 266 F. App’x 415, 419 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he instant affidavit describes an\\nincident where law enforcement agents observed Defendant visiting his residence right before he\\ntraveled to the site of a drug sale. . . . This evidence, combined with the affiant’s statements that\\nhe has significant experience in narcotics investigations, is sufficient to establish a nexus\\nbetween Defendant’s illegal activities and his residence.”).\\n\\n Coleman points to several cases where this court granted motions to suppress evidence on\\nthe basis that the warrants in question lacked probable cause that the defendant stored narcotics\\nat his home. See Brown, 828 F.3d at 385; United States v. Higgins, 557 F.3d 381, 390 (6th Cir.\\n2009); United States v. Helton, 314 F.3d 812, 823 (6th Cir. 2003). Each of these cases, however,\\nhad much weaker facts linking the drugs to the defendant’s home, and none of them established\\nthe defendant as an active drug dealer. In Higgins, the supporting affidavit relied on an unproven\\ntipster, with no evidence that the tipster observed narcotics or evidence of illegal drug sales\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 10\\n\\n\\nassociated with the defendant’s residence. Higgins, 557 F.3d at 389–90. Here, however, the\\ninformant was reliable, having conducted multiple controlled buys associated with the case, and\\nlaw-enforcement agents independently established that Coleman delivered cocaine shortly after\\nleaving his house. In Helton, the only nexus evidence was an anonymous tip and evidence that\\nthe owner of the residence had received calls from suspected drug dealers, a far cry from that\\nwhich we have here: a proven informant who conducted multiple controlled buys along with\\nevidence that Coleman drove from his home to the location of the drug sale. Helton, 314 F.3d at\\n820–21. And in Brown, the court required a “more direct connection” to the residence such as\\n“surveillance indicating that [the defendant] had used the car to transport [drugs] from his home\\nto [the site of a drug transaction],” which is precisely the surveillance evidence that had been\\ngathered here. See Brown, 828 F.3d at 383.\\n\\n We therefore hold that the residential search warrant was amply supported by probable\\ncause.\\n\\n V\\n\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4393903/\", \"author_raw\": \"BOGGS, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BOGGS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KETHLEDGE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"NALBANDIAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4616650/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Lewis COLEMAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-03\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0084p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n > No. 18-1083\n v. │\n │\n │\n RONALD LEWIS COLEMAN, JR., │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.\n No. 1:17-cr-00136-1—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.\n\n Argued: January 17, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 3, 2019\n\n Before: BOGGS, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Clare E. Freeman, THE FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP, P.L.L.C., La Porte, Texas,\nfor Appellant. Sally J. Berens, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids,\nMichigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Clare E. Freeman, THE FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP,\nP.L.L.C., La Porte, Texas, for Appellant. Davin M. Reust, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\nOFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Defendant Ronald Coleman appeals the district court’s denial of\na motion to suppress the fruits of a warrant for vehicle tracking and a residential search warrant\n\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 2\n\n\non the grounds that the warrants lacked probable cause and that law enforcement’s installation of\nthe vehicle tracker violated the Fourth Amendment. Because the warrants were amply supported\nby probable cause and the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when installing the\ntracker, we affirm.\n\n I\n\n On March 9, 2017, law-enforcement agents began investigating Eddie Powell, a drug\ndealer, and his sources of narcotics. A cooperating defendant1 identified one of those sources as\nthe defendant, Ronald Coleman. Officers began investigating Coleman and observed his two\nautomobiles, a brown Trailblazer and a white Buick Enclave, in connection with suspected drug\nsales to Powell. Specifically, on April 7, 2017, law-enforcement officers observed an individual\nmatching Coleman’s description arrive at Powell’s house, get out of Coleman’s Enclave, enter\nthe house, and leave three minutes later. Then, four days later, Coleman arrived at Powell’s\nhouse in the Trailblazer and sold cocaine to the cooperating defendant.\n\n Around this time, a law-enforcement agent checked Coleman’s criminal history and\ndetermined he had felony convictions in 2006 and 2009 for delivery or manufacture of a\ncontrolled substance. The agent also discovered that both vehicles were registered to Coleman’s\nfather and observed that, in his experience, drug traffickers frequently register their vehicles in\nthe names of family or friends to conceal their identities. The agent detailed all of these findings,\nas well as the facts from the suspected drug sales, in a supporting affidavit and, on April 19,\n2017, obtained tracking warrants from a federal magistrate judge for Coleman’s Enclave and\nTrailblazer on the belief that tracking those vehicles would provide evidence of their\ninvolvement in the distribution of narcotics.2\n\n On April 20, 2017, an ATF agent attached the tracking devices to Coleman’s Enclave and\nTrailblazer. To apply the trackers, the agent went to Coleman’s condominium on East Springtree\n\n\n 1The cooperating defendant was a reliable informant and conducted multiple controlled buys associated\nwith this case.\n 2While the agent obtained vehicle-tracking warrants for both the Enclave and the Trailblazer, Coleman is\nchallenging only the warrant for the Enclave.\n\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 3\n\n\nLane SW in Grand Rapids, which is part of the Silverleaf Condominium Complex, a collection\nof approximately 40 residential units scattered across several streets within the complex.\n\n There is no gate or fence at the entrance to the Silverleaf complex, but there is a small\nsign that says: “PRIVATE PROPERTY.” The sign, however, does not forbid outside visitors\nand anyone can drive onto the streets of the condominium complex unimpeded. Residents are\nable to have visitors without requesting permission from neighbors, the Postal Service delivers\nmail to mailboxes inside the complex, and there is a single trash-collection business that serves\nall units.\n\n Coleman’s condominium unit is roughly a mile down the road from the entrance of the\ncomplex, alongside other similar buildings. His particular unit is in a building shared by three\nother families, and his driveway is shared with a neighboring family. The entire driveway\nconsists of a single concrete slab leading to Coleman’s garage and the garage of Coleman’s\nneighbor. No gate, fence, or hedgerow surrounds the condo, and it is common for residents to\nwalk by each other’s vehicles over the course of a day.\n\n To attach the tracking devices, the agent parked in a public parking spot across the street\nfrom Coleman’s condo and walked up to Coleman’s Enclave, which was parked in front of his\ngarage a few feet onto the driveway. Coleman’s Trailblazer was across the street, in a parking\nspot shared by residents and guests.\n\n On May 4 and May 10, 2017, Coleman sold cocaine to Powell. During the May 10 sale,\nagents observed Coleman leave his condo, enter the Enclave, and get out of the Enclave at\nPowell’s home. Agents also watched the GPS tracking data from the Enclave vehicle tracker,\nand the data appeared to show that Coleman traveled directly from his condo to Powell’s house.\nBased on this information, agents applied for a warrant to search Coleman’s condo for evidence\nof drug trafficking and money laundering. On May 23, 2017, a different federal magistrate judge\nthan the one who had signed the tracking warrants signed the condo search warrant.\n\n On May 31, 2017, agents executed the condo warrant, seizing approximately 500 grams\nof cocaine, a firearm, and documents and property indicative of money laundering. Agents then\ninterviewed Coleman and he admitted possession and ownership of the cocaine and a firearm.\n\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 4\n\n\nLater that day, the government filed a complaint against Coleman and, on June 27, 2017, he was\nindicted on three counts of a five-count indictment, charging him with conspiracy to distribute\ncocaine, possession with intent to deliver cocaine, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.\n\n On July 25, 2017, Coleman moved to suppress the fruits of the vehicle-tracking and\nresidential search warrants, arguing that the warrants contained insufficient probable cause and\nthat the agents attached the tracking device on Coleman’s Enclave in violation of the Fourth\nAmendment. After receiving the evidence and arguments, the district court held that (1) the\nEnclave warrant was supported by probable cause; (2) Coleman’s driveway was not within the\ncurtilage of his home; (3) the residential search warrant was supported by probable cause; and\n(4) even if the warrants were not supported by probable cause, ATF agents executed them in\ngood faith.\n\n On September 12, 2017, Coleman pled guilty to the three counts against him by way of a\nconditional plea agreement. The plea agreement allowed Coleman to appeal the denial of his\nmotion to suppress. On January 22, 2018, the district court sentenced Coleman to 120 months of\nimprisonment.\n\n II\n\n Coleman first argues that the warrant for installing a tracking device on his Buick\nEnclave was not supported by probable cause. We disagree.\n\n According to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c)–(d), a magistrate judge must\nissue a tracking-device warrant if a supporting affidavit establishes probable cause to believe that\nthe device will uncover evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of a crime. Here, the affidavit had\nestablished numerous facts supporting the notion that the use of a tracking device on Coleman’s\nEnclave could uncover further evidence of wrongdoing:\n\n • A confidential informant identified Coleman as a current drug supplier to\n Powell.\n • Authorities had been investigating four drug sales at Powell’s residence,\n one of which involved Coleman dropping off cocaine for Powell.\n • A law-enforcement agent observed an individual matching Coleman’s\n description drive to Powell’s house in the Enclave, stay only four minutes,\n\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 5\n\n\n and leave, activity that could be consistent with the driver engaging in\n illegal drug sales.\n • Coleman had two prior felony convictions for delivery/manufacture of\n controlled substances.\n • A Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) check on the vehicle\n identified Coleman’s father as the Enclave’s owner.\n\nCourts have upheld vehicle-tracking warrants based on much weaker factual allegations than\nthese. See, e.g., United States v. Faulkner, 826 F.3d 1139, 1145 (8th Cir. 2016) (upholding a\nvehicle-tracking warrant where a confidential informant told police the defendant brought heroin\nfrom Chicago to Minneapolis, stayed at two addresses, and drove two vehicles, but where no one\nhad directly observed either vehicle involved in suspected drug activity); United States v.\nMcNeal, 818 F.3d 141, 150 (4th Cir. 2016) (upholding a tracking warrant where affidavit\nestablished merely that the vehicle was registered to suspect’s mother and driven to case banks,\nand where an informant tipped authorities the vehicle was used in bank robberies). Accordingly,\nwe hold that the tracking warrant was supported by probable cause.\n\n III\n\n Next, Coleman claims that authorities violated his Fourth Amendment rights when an\nATF agent entered his condominium’s driveway to install the GPS tracking device on his\nEnclave. Coleman alleges two Fourth Amendment violations resulting from the agent’s actions:\nthe first when the agent entered Coleman’s condominium complex despite there being a sign\nreading “PRIVATE PROPERTY,” and the second when the agent walked onto Coleman’s\ndriveway to install the GPS tracker.\n\n “When the government gains information by physically intruding into one’s home, a\nsearch within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has undoubtedly occurred.”\nMorgan v. Fairchild Cty., Ohio, 903 F.3d 553, 561 (6th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and\ncitations omitted). “But it is not just the physical house that receives the Amendment’s\nprotection. The curtilage—the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home—is\ntreated as part of [the] home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Ibid. (internal quotations\nmarks and citations omitted). “The protection afforded the curtilage is essentially a protection of\n\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 6\n\n\nfamilies and personal privacy in an area intimately linked to the home, both physically and\npsychologically, where privacy expectations are most heightened.” Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct\n1663, 1670 (2018). Courts have identified four factors as a guidepost to determining whether an\nindividual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area, placing it within the home’s\ncurtilage: (1) proximity to the home; (2) whether the area is within an enclosure around the\nhome; (3) uses of the area; and (4) steps taken to protect the area from observation by passersby.\nUnited States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987). It is a “fact-intensive analysis” conducted on a\ncase-by-case basis. Morgan, 903 F.3d at 561. As the proponent of the motion to suppress,\nColeman “bears the burden of establishing that the challenged search violated his Fourth\nAmendment rights.” United States v. Witherspoon, 467 F. App’x 486, 490 (6th Cir. 2012).\n\n Coleman first argues that the agent’s entry onto the condominium complex itself violated\nhis Fourth Amendment rights. We disagree. Though the condominium complex had a\n“PRIVATE PROPERTY” sign at its entrance, anyone could drive into the complex without\nexpress permission. No gate prevented outsiders from entering, and the condo association had\nnot taken any effort to keep non-residents out. The sign itself did not require permission to enter,\nprohibit outside visitors, or even state “no trespassing.” Accordingly, the agent did not violate\nColeman’s Fourth Amendment rights merely by entering the condominium complex. See, e.g.,\nUnited States v. Dillard, 438 F.3d 675, 682 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that defendant had no\nreasonable expectation of privacy in the common area of his building’s duplex that was unlocked\nand open to the public because he “made no effort to maintain his privacy in the common\nhallway and stairway” and therefore “did nothing to indicate to the officers that they were not\nwelcome in the common areas”).\n\n Whether the ATF agent intruded onto the curtilage of Coleman’s building by entering his\ndriveway, however, is a closer question. Coleman places heavy emphasis on the Supreme\nCourt’s recent decision in Collins in arguing that such an intrusion occurred. In Collins, police\nwere investigating a motorcycle thought to be stolen by the defendant, Ryan Collins. 138 S. Ct.\nat 1668. An officer tracked down the vehicle to Collins’s girlfriend’s residence and walked onto\nthe property to the top of the driveway to examine the vehicle, which was under a tarp. Ibid.\nThe officer then pulled off the tarp, ran a search of the license plate and vehicle identification\n\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 7\n\n\nnumbers, and discovered that the motorcycle was stolen. Ibid. After gathering this information,\nthe officer took a photograph of the uncovered motorcycle, put the tarp back on, left the\nproperty, and returned to his car to wait for Collins to return. Ibid. At no point in this process\ndid the officer have a warrant. Ibid. The Court described the driveway as follows:\n\n [T]he driveway runs alongside the front lawn and up a few yards past the front\n perimeter of the house. The top portion of the driveway that sits behind the front\n perimeter of the house is enclosed on two sides by a brick wall about the height of\n a car and on a third side by the house. A side door provides direct access between\n this partially enclosed section of the driveway and the house. A visitor\n endeavoring to reach the front door of the house would have to walk partway up\n the driveway, but would turn off before entering the enclosure and instead\n proceed up a set of steps leading to the front porch. When [the officer] searched\n the motorcycle, it was parked inside this partially enclosed top portion of the\n driveway that abuts the house.\n\nId. at 1670–71. The Court held that, “[j]ust like the front porch, side garden, or area outside the\nfront window, the driveway enclosure where [the officer] searched the motorcycle constitutes an\narea adjacent to the home and to which the activity of home life extends, and so is properly\nconsidered curtilage.” Ibid. (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, the\nCourt found that the officer had violated Collins’s Fourth Amendment rights by intruding onto\nthe building’s curtilage.\n\n The facts in Collins, however, are quite different from the facts here. In Collins, the\nportion of the driveway where the motorcycle sat was past the front perimeter of the home,\nenclosed on three sides (two by a brick wall, one by the home itself), and not on the way to the\nfront door of the residence. 138 S. Ct. at 1670–71. Coleman’s Enclave, in contrast, was sitting\nin front of the residence, was not enclosed by anything, and was on the way to the entrance of his\nhome. The Collins motorcycle was also covered with a tarp; Coleman’s car was not. Finally, the\nColeman driveway was in fact shared with other families and other condo residents frequently\nwalked past cars parked in front of condo units. See United States v. Jones, 893 F.3d 66, 72\n(2d Cir. 2018) (“[Collins] . . . has no effect on [defendant’s] appeal, which fails because the\ndriveway in which [defendant’s] vehicle was parked was the shared driveway of tenants in two\nmulti-family buildings and was not within the curtilage of [defendant’s] private home.”).\n\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 8\n\n\n Though prior to the Collins ruling, the Sixth Circuit cases of United States v. Galaviz,\n645 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2011), and United States v. Estes, 343 F. App’x 97 (6th Cir. 2011),\nsurvive Collins and are factually more on point. Both cases involved driveways with similar\ncharacteristics to the one here: adjacent to a home, not enclosed, abutting a sidewalk or alley,\nwith no steps taken to obstruct the view of passersby. Galaviz, 645 F.3d at 356; Estes, 343 F.\nApp’x at 101. In both instances, this court held that the officers did not intrude upon the\nbuilding’s curtilage by entering the driveway. In Estes, we held that “at least three of the factors\nin Dunn undercut a finding that the driveway represents curtilage” because “the area was not\nclosed,” “defendant had not taken any steps to protect the area from observation by people\npassing by,” and “it was used as a point of entry into the residence.” Estes, F. App’x at 101\n(internal quotation marks omitted). In Galaviz, the court found that, while “the driveway was\ndirectly adjacent to the house,” it “was not enclosed by a fence or other barrier and was short,\nwith the portion of the driveway where [the defendant’s] car was parked directly abutting the\npublic sidewalk” and that “no apparent steps were taken by the residents of the house to protect\nthe driveway from observation by passersby—no hedges or bushes obstructed the view of the\ndriveway from the sidewalk or street, for example.” Galaviz, 645 F.3d at 356. Those same\nanalyses would apply to the driveway in question here. While the proximity of the driveway to\nthe residence here may lean in favor of considering it to be curtilage, the other Dunn factors—\nwhether the area is within an enclosure around the home, the uses of the area, and the steps taken\nto protect the area from observation by passersby—all point toward the opposite conclusion.\n\n Accordingly, we hold that the ATF agent did not intrude upon the curtilage of Coleman’s\nresidence in order to install the vehicle tracker and therefore did not run afoul of the Fourth\nAmendment.\n\n IV\n\n Finally, Coleman argues that there was insufficient probable cause for the magistrate\njudge to issue a search warrant for Coleman’s condo. “The job of a magistrate judge presented\nwith a search warrant application is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether,\ngiven all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit . . . , there is a fair probability that\ncontraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” United States v. Brown,\n\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 9\n\n\n828 F.3d 375, 381 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). There must be\na “nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought.” United States v. Carpenter,\n360 F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc). However, a magistrate issuing a search warrant\n“may infer that drug traffickers use their homes to store drugs and otherwise further their drug\ntrafficking.” United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683, 687 (6th Cir. 2008). This reflects the\nreality that, “in the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live.”\nUnited States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 975 (6th Cir. 1998) (citation and alteration omitted).\n\n Here, the affidavit in support of the residential search warrant established that Coleman\nwas an active drug trafficker, that the Springtree Lane address was Coleman’s home, and that\nboth of Coleman’s vehicles were regularly parked there. According to the affidavit, agents had\nconducted three controlled buys of cocaine from Coleman and observed him drive directly from\nhis condo to the site of the most recent buy, less than two weeks before the warrant issued. This\nwas sufficient to establish that Coleman was an active drug trafficker at the time the warrant\nissued and to provide a reasonable inference that he transported narcotics from his residence to\nthe location of the cocaine sale. See, e.g., United States v. Bucio-Cabrales, 635 F. App’x 324,\n334 (6th Cir. 2016) (evidence defendant traveled to two addresses—one of which was home—\nprior to narcotics sales supported inference he was storing narcotics at one residence); United\nStates v. Gunter, 266 F. App’x 415, 419 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he instant affidavit describes an\nincident where law enforcement agents observed Defendant visiting his residence right before he\ntraveled to the site of a drug sale. . . . This evidence, combined with the affiant’s statements that\nhe has significant experience in narcotics investigations, is sufficient to establish a nexus\nbetween Defendant’s illegal activities and his residence.”).\n\n Coleman points to several cases where this court granted motions to suppress evidence on\nthe basis that the warrants in question lacked probable cause that the defendant stored narcotics\nat his home. See Brown, 828 F.3d at 385; United States v. Higgins, 557 F.3d 381, 390 (6th Cir.\n2009); United States v. Helton, 314 F.3d 812, 823 (6th Cir. 2003). Each of these cases, however,\nhad much weaker facts linking the drugs to the defendant’s home, and none of them established\nthe defendant as an active drug dealer. In Higgins, the supporting affidavit relied on an unproven\ntipster, with no evidence that the tipster observed narcotics or evidence of illegal drug sales\n\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 10\n\n\nassociated with the defendant’s residence. Higgins, 557 F.3d at 389–90. Here, however, the\ninformant was reliable, having conducted multiple controlled buys associated with the case, and\nlaw-enforcement agents independently established that Coleman delivered cocaine shortly after\nleaving his house. In Helton, the only nexus evidence was an anonymous tip and evidence that\nthe owner of the residence had received calls from suspected drug dealers, a far cry from that\nwhich we have here: a proven informant who conducted multiple controlled buys along with\nevidence that Coleman drove from his home to the location of the drug sale. Helton, 314 F.3d at\n820–21. And in Brown, the court required a “more direct connection” to the residence such as\n“surveillance indicating that [the defendant] had used the car to transport [drugs] from his home\nto [the site of a drug transaction],” which is precisely the surveillance evidence that had been\ngathered here. See Brown, 828 F.3d at 383.\n\n We therefore hold that the residential search warrant was amply supported by probable\ncause.\n\n V\n\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Lewis COLEMAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-03\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0084p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-1083\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n RONALD LEWIS COLEMAN, JR., │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.\\n No. 1:17-cr-00136-1—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: January 17, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 3, 2019\\n\\n Before: BOGGS, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Clare E. Freeman, THE FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP, P.L.L.C., La Porte, Texas,\\nfor Appellant. Sally J. Berens, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids,\\nMichigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Clare E. Freeman, THE FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP,\\nP.L.L.C., La Porte, Texas, for Appellant. Davin M. Reust, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\\nOFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Defendant Ronald Coleman appeals the district court’s denial of\\na motion to suppress the fruits of a warrant for vehicle tracking and a residential search warrant\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 2\\n\\n\\non the grounds that the warrants lacked probable cause and that law enforcement’s installation of\\nthe vehicle tracker violated the Fourth Amendment. Because the warrants were amply supported\\nby probable cause and the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when installing the\\ntracker, we affirm.\\n\\n I\\n\\n On March 9, 2017, law-enforcement agents began investigating Eddie Powell, a drug\\ndealer, and his sources of narcotics. A cooperating defendant1 identified one of those sources as\\nthe defendant, Ronald Coleman. Officers began investigating Coleman and observed his two\\nautomobiles, a brown Trailblazer and a white Buick Enclave, in connection with suspected drug\\nsales to Powell. Specifically, on April 7, 2017, law-enforcement officers observed an individual\\nmatching Coleman’s description arrive at Powell’s house, get out of Coleman’s Enclave, enter\\nthe house, and leave three minutes later. Then, four days later, Coleman arrived at Powell’s\\nhouse in the Trailblazer and sold cocaine to the cooperating defendant.\\n\\n Around this time, a law-enforcement agent checked Coleman’s criminal history and\\ndetermined he had felony convictions in 2006 and 2009 for delivery or manufacture of a\\ncontrolled substance. The agent also discovered that both vehicles were registered to Coleman’s\\nfather and observed that, in his experience, drug traffickers frequently register their vehicles in\\nthe names of family or friends to conceal their identities. The agent detailed all of these findings,\\nas well as the facts from the suspected drug sales, in a supporting affidavit and, on April 19,\\n2017, obtained tracking warrants from a federal magistrate judge for Coleman’s Enclave and\\nTrailblazer on the belief that tracking those vehicles would provide evidence of their\\ninvolvement in the distribution of narcotics.2\\n\\n On April 20, 2017, an ATF agent attached the tracking devices to Coleman’s Enclave and\\nTrailblazer. To apply the trackers, the agent went to Coleman’s condominium on East Springtree\\n\\n\\n 1The cooperating defendant was a reliable informant and conducted multiple controlled buys associated\\nwith this case.\\n 2While the agent obtained vehicle-tracking warrants for both the Enclave and the Trailblazer, Coleman is\\nchallenging only the warrant for the Enclave.\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 3\\n\\n\\nLane SW in Grand Rapids, which is part of the Silverleaf Condominium Complex, a collection\\nof approximately 40 residential units scattered across several streets within the complex.\\n\\n There is no gate or fence at the entrance to the Silverleaf complex, but there is a small\\nsign that says: “PRIVATE PROPERTY.” The sign, however, does not forbid outside visitors\\nand anyone can drive onto the streets of the condominium complex unimpeded. Residents are\\nable to have visitors without requesting permission from neighbors, the Postal Service delivers\\nmail to mailboxes inside the complex, and there is a single trash-collection business that serves\\nall units.\\n\\n Coleman’s condominium unit is roughly a mile down the road from the entrance of the\\ncomplex, alongside other similar buildings. His particular unit is in a building shared by three\\nother families, and his driveway is shared with a neighboring family. The entire driveway\\nconsists of a single concrete slab leading to Coleman’s garage and the garage of Coleman’s\\nneighbor. No gate, fence, or hedgerow surrounds the condo, and it is common for residents to\\nwalk by each other’s vehicles over the course of a day.\\n\\n To attach the tracking devices, the agent parked in a public parking spot across the street\\nfrom Coleman’s condo and walked up to Coleman’s Enclave, which was parked in front of his\\ngarage a few feet onto the driveway. Coleman’s Trailblazer was across the street, in a parking\\nspot shared by residents and guests.\\n\\n On May 4 and May 10, 2017, Coleman sold cocaine to Powell. During the May 10 sale,\\nagents observed Coleman leave his condo, enter the Enclave, and get out of the Enclave at\\nPowell’s home. Agents also watched the GPS tracking data from the Enclave vehicle tracker,\\nand the data appeared to show that Coleman traveled directly from his condo to Powell’s house.\\nBased on this information, agents applied for a warrant to search Coleman’s condo for evidence\\nof drug trafficking and money laundering. On May 23, 2017, a different federal magistrate judge\\nthan the one who had signed the tracking warrants signed the condo search warrant.\\n\\n On May 31, 2017, agents executed the condo warrant, seizing approximately 500 grams\\nof cocaine, a firearm, and documents and property indicative of money laundering. Agents then\\ninterviewed Coleman and he admitted possession and ownership of the cocaine and a firearm.\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 4\\n\\n\\nLater that day, the government filed a complaint against Coleman and, on June 27, 2017, he was\\nindicted on three counts of a five-count indictment, charging him with conspiracy to distribute\\ncocaine, possession with intent to deliver cocaine, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.\\n\\n On July 25, 2017, Coleman moved to suppress the fruits of the vehicle-tracking and\\nresidential search warrants, arguing that the warrants contained insufficient probable cause and\\nthat the agents attached the tracking device on Coleman’s Enclave in violation of the Fourth\\nAmendment. After receiving the evidence and arguments, the district court held that (1) the\\nEnclave warrant was supported by probable cause; (2) Coleman’s driveway was not within the\\ncurtilage of his home; (3) the residential search warrant was supported by probable cause; and\\n(4) even if the warrants were not supported by probable cause, ATF agents executed them in\\ngood faith.\\n\\n On September 12, 2017, Coleman pled guilty to the three counts against him by way of a\\nconditional plea agreement. The plea agreement allowed Coleman to appeal the denial of his\\nmotion to suppress. On January 22, 2018, the district court sentenced Coleman to 120 months of\\nimprisonment.\\n\\n II\\n\\n Coleman first argues that the warrant for installing a tracking device on his Buick\\nEnclave was not supported by probable cause. We disagree.\\n\\n According to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c)–(d), a magistrate judge must\\nissue a tracking-device warrant if a supporting affidavit establishes probable cause to believe that\\nthe device will uncover evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of a crime. Here, the affidavit had\\nestablished numerous facts supporting the notion that the use of a tracking device on Coleman’s\\nEnclave could uncover further evidence of wrongdoing:\\n\\n • A confidential informant identified Coleman as a current drug supplier to\\n Powell.\\n • Authorities had been investigating four drug sales at Powell’s residence,\\n one of which involved Coleman dropping off cocaine for Powell.\\n • A law-enforcement agent observed an individual matching Coleman’s\\n description drive to Powell’s house in the Enclave, stay only four minutes,\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 5\\n\\n\\n and leave, activity that could be consistent with the driver engaging in\\n illegal drug sales.\\n • Coleman had two prior felony convictions for delivery/manufacture of\\n controlled substances.\\n • A Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) check on the vehicle\\n identified Coleman’s father as the Enclave’s owner.\\n\\nCourts have upheld vehicle-tracking warrants based on much weaker factual allegations than\\nthese. See, e.g., United States v. Faulkner, 826 F.3d 1139, 1145 (8th Cir. 2016) (upholding a\\nvehicle-tracking warrant where a confidential informant told police the defendant brought heroin\\nfrom Chicago to Minneapolis, stayed at two addresses, and drove two vehicles, but where no one\\nhad directly observed either vehicle involved in suspected drug activity); United States v.\\nMcNeal, 818 F.3d 141, 150 (4th Cir. 2016) (upholding a tracking warrant where affidavit\\nestablished merely that the vehicle was registered to suspect’s mother and driven to case banks,\\nand where an informant tipped authorities the vehicle was used in bank robberies). Accordingly,\\nwe hold that the tracking warrant was supported by probable cause.\\n\\n III\\n\\n Next, Coleman claims that authorities violated his Fourth Amendment rights when an\\nATF agent entered his condominium’s driveway to install the GPS tracking device on his\\nEnclave. Coleman alleges two Fourth Amendment violations resulting from the agent’s actions:\\nthe first when the agent entered Coleman’s condominium complex despite there being a sign\\nreading “PRIVATE PROPERTY,” and the second when the agent walked onto Coleman’s\\ndriveway to install the GPS tracker.\\n\\n “When the government gains information by physically intruding into one’s home, a\\nsearch within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has undoubtedly occurred.”\\nMorgan v. Fairchild Cty., Ohio, 903 F.3d 553, 561 (6th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and\\ncitations omitted). “But it is not just the physical house that receives the Amendment’s\\nprotection. The curtilage—the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home—is\\ntreated as part of [the] home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Ibid. (internal quotations\\nmarks and citations omitted). “The protection afforded the curtilage is essentially a protection of\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 6\\n\\n\\nfamilies and personal privacy in an area intimately linked to the home, both physically and\\npsychologically, where privacy expectations are most heightened.” Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct\\n1663, 1670 (2018). Courts have identified four factors as a guidepost to determining whether an\\nindividual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area, placing it within the home’s\\ncurtilage: (1) proximity to the home; (2) whether the area is within an enclosure around the\\nhome; (3) uses of the area; and (4) steps taken to protect the area from observation by passersby.\\nUnited States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987). It is a “fact-intensive analysis” conducted on a\\ncase-by-case basis. Morgan, 903 F.3d at 561. As the proponent of the motion to suppress,\\nColeman “bears the burden of establishing that the challenged search violated his Fourth\\nAmendment rights.” United States v. Witherspoon, 467 F. App’x 486, 490 (6th Cir. 2012).\\n\\n Coleman first argues that the agent’s entry onto the condominium complex itself violated\\nhis Fourth Amendment rights. We disagree. Though the condominium complex had a\\n“PRIVATE PROPERTY” sign at its entrance, anyone could drive into the complex without\\nexpress permission. No gate prevented outsiders from entering, and the condo association had\\nnot taken any effort to keep non-residents out. The sign itself did not require permission to enter,\\nprohibit outside visitors, or even state “no trespassing.” Accordingly, the agent did not violate\\nColeman’s Fourth Amendment rights merely by entering the condominium complex. See, e.g.,\\nUnited States v. Dillard, 438 F.3d 675, 682 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that defendant had no\\nreasonable expectation of privacy in the common area of his building’s duplex that was unlocked\\nand open to the public because he “made no effort to maintain his privacy in the common\\nhallway and stairway” and therefore “did nothing to indicate to the officers that they were not\\nwelcome in the common areas”).\\n\\n Whether the ATF agent intruded onto the curtilage of Coleman’s building by entering his\\ndriveway, however, is a closer question. Coleman places heavy emphasis on the Supreme\\nCourt’s recent decision in Collins in arguing that such an intrusion occurred. In Collins, police\\nwere investigating a motorcycle thought to be stolen by the defendant, Ryan Collins. 138 S. Ct.\\nat 1668. An officer tracked down the vehicle to Collins’s girlfriend’s residence and walked onto\\nthe property to the top of the driveway to examine the vehicle, which was under a tarp. Ibid.\\nThe officer then pulled off the tarp, ran a search of the license plate and vehicle identification\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 7\\n\\n\\nnumbers, and discovered that the motorcycle was stolen. Ibid. After gathering this information,\\nthe officer took a photograph of the uncovered motorcycle, put the tarp back on, left the\\nproperty, and returned to his car to wait for Collins to return. Ibid. At no point in this process\\ndid the officer have a warrant. Ibid. The Court described the driveway as follows:\\n\\n [T]he driveway runs alongside the front lawn and up a few yards past the front\\n perimeter of the house. The top portion of the driveway that sits behind the front\\n perimeter of the house is enclosed on two sides by a brick wall about the height of\\n a car and on a third side by the house. A side door provides direct access between\\n this partially enclosed section of the driveway and the house. A visitor\\n endeavoring to reach the front door of the house would have to walk partway up\\n the driveway, but would turn off before entering the enclosure and instead\\n proceed up a set of steps leading to the front porch. When [the officer] searched\\n the motorcycle, it was parked inside this partially enclosed top portion of the\\n driveway that abuts the house.\\n\\nId. at 1670–71. The Court held that, “[j]ust like the front porch, side garden, or area outside the\\nfront window, the driveway enclosure where [the officer] searched the motorcycle constitutes an\\narea adjacent to the home and to which the activity of home life extends, and so is properly\\nconsidered curtilage.” Ibid. (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, the\\nCourt found that the officer had violated Collins’s Fourth Amendment rights by intruding onto\\nthe building’s curtilage.\\n\\n The facts in Collins, however, are quite different from the facts here. In Collins, the\\nportion of the driveway where the motorcycle sat was past the front perimeter of the home,\\nenclosed on three sides (two by a brick wall, one by the home itself), and not on the way to the\\nfront door of the residence. 138 S. Ct. at 1670–71. Coleman’s Enclave, in contrast, was sitting\\nin front of the residence, was not enclosed by anything, and was on the way to the entrance of his\\nhome. The Collins motorcycle was also covered with a tarp; Coleman’s car was not. Finally, the\\nColeman driveway was in fact shared with other families and other condo residents frequently\\nwalked past cars parked in front of condo units. See United States v. Jones, 893 F.3d 66, 72\\n(2d Cir. 2018) (“[Collins] . . . has no effect on [defendant’s] appeal, which fails because the\\ndriveway in which [defendant’s] vehicle was parked was the shared driveway of tenants in two\\nmulti-family buildings and was not within the curtilage of [defendant’s] private home.”).\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 8\\n\\n\\n Though prior to the Collins ruling, the Sixth Circuit cases of United States v. Galaviz,\\n645 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2011), and United States v. Estes, 343 F. App’x 97 (6th Cir. 2011),\\nsurvive Collins and are factually more on point. Both cases involved driveways with similar\\ncharacteristics to the one here: adjacent to a home, not enclosed, abutting a sidewalk or alley,\\nwith no steps taken to obstruct the view of passersby. Galaviz, 645 F.3d at 356; Estes, 343 F.\\nApp’x at 101. In both instances, this court held that the officers did not intrude upon the\\nbuilding’s curtilage by entering the driveway. In Estes, we held that “at least three of the factors\\nin Dunn undercut a finding that the driveway represents curtilage” because “the area was not\\nclosed,” “defendant had not taken any steps to protect the area from observation by people\\npassing by,” and “it was used as a point of entry into the residence.” Estes, F. App’x at 101\\n(internal quotation marks omitted). In Galaviz, the court found that, while “the driveway was\\ndirectly adjacent to the house,” it “was not enclosed by a fence or other barrier and was short,\\nwith the portion of the driveway where [the defendant’s] car was parked directly abutting the\\npublic sidewalk” and that “no apparent steps were taken by the residents of the house to protect\\nthe driveway from observation by passersby—no hedges or bushes obstructed the view of the\\ndriveway from the sidewalk or street, for example.” Galaviz, 645 F.3d at 356. Those same\\nanalyses would apply to the driveway in question here. While the proximity of the driveway to\\nthe residence here may lean in favor of considering it to be curtilage, the other Dunn factors—\\nwhether the area is within an enclosure around the home, the uses of the area, and the steps taken\\nto protect the area from observation by passersby—all point toward the opposite conclusion.\\n\\n Accordingly, we hold that the ATF agent did not intrude upon the curtilage of Coleman’s\\nresidence in order to install the vehicle tracker and therefore did not run afoul of the Fourth\\nAmendment.\\n\\n IV\\n\\n Finally, Coleman argues that there was insufficient probable cause for the magistrate\\njudge to issue a search warrant for Coleman’s condo. “The job of a magistrate judge presented\\nwith a search warrant application is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether,\\ngiven all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit . . . , there is a fair probability that\\ncontraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” United States v. Brown,\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 9\\n\\n\\n828 F.3d 375, 381 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). There must be\\na “nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought.” United States v. Carpenter,\\n360 F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc). However, a magistrate issuing a search warrant\\n“may infer that drug traffickers use their homes to store drugs and otherwise further their drug\\ntrafficking.” United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683, 687 (6th Cir. 2008). This reflects the\\nreality that, “in the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live.”\\nUnited States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 975 (6th Cir. 1998) (citation and alteration omitted).\\n\\n Here, the affidavit in support of the residential search warrant established that Coleman\\nwas an active drug trafficker, that the Springtree Lane address was Coleman’s home, and that\\nboth of Coleman’s vehicles were regularly parked there. According to the affidavit, agents had\\nconducted three controlled buys of cocaine from Coleman and observed him drive directly from\\nhis condo to the site of the most recent buy, less than two weeks before the warrant issued. This\\nwas sufficient to establish that Coleman was an active drug trafficker at the time the warrant\\nissued and to provide a reasonable inference that he transported narcotics from his residence to\\nthe location of the cocaine sale. See, e.g., United States v. Bucio-Cabrales, 635 F. App’x 324,\\n334 (6th Cir. 2016) (evidence defendant traveled to two addresses—one of which was home—\\nprior to narcotics sales supported inference he was storing narcotics at one residence); United\\nStates v. Gunter, 266 F. App’x 415, 419 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he instant affidavit describes an\\nincident where law enforcement agents observed Defendant visiting his residence right before he\\ntraveled to the site of a drug sale. . . . This evidence, combined with the affiant’s statements that\\nhe has significant experience in narcotics investigations, is sufficient to establish a nexus\\nbetween Defendant’s illegal activities and his residence.”).\\n\\n Coleman points to several cases where this court granted motions to suppress evidence on\\nthe basis that the warrants in question lacked probable cause that the defendant stored narcotics\\nat his home. See Brown, 828 F.3d at 385; United States v. Higgins, 557 F.3d 381, 390 (6th Cir.\\n2009); United States v. Helton, 314 F.3d 812, 823 (6th Cir. 2003). Each of these cases, however,\\nhad much weaker facts linking the drugs to the defendant’s home, and none of them established\\nthe defendant as an active drug dealer. In Higgins, the supporting affidavit relied on an unproven\\ntipster, with no evidence that the tipster observed narcotics or evidence of illegal drug sales\\n\\f No. 18-1083 United States v. Coleman Page 10\\n\\n\\nassociated with the defendant’s residence. Higgins, 557 F.3d at 389–90. Here, however, the\\ninformant was reliable, having conducted multiple controlled buys associated with the case, and\\nlaw-enforcement agents independently established that Coleman delivered cocaine shortly after\\nleaving his house. In Helton, the only nexus evidence was an anonymous tip and evidence that\\nthe owner of the residence had received calls from suspected drug dealers, a far cry from that\\nwhich we have here: a proven informant who conducted multiple controlled buys along with\\nevidence that Coleman drove from his home to the location of the drug sale. Helton, 314 F.3d at\\n820–21. And in Brown, the court required a “more direct connection” to the residence such as\\n“surveillance indicating that [the defendant] had used the car to transport [drugs] from his home\\nto [the site of a drug transaction],” which is precisely the surveillance evidence that had been\\ngathered here. See Brown, 828 F.3d at 383.\\n\\n We therefore hold that the residential search warrant was amply supported by probable\\ncause.\\n\\n V\\n\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2071,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4616651,"string":"4,616,651"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"James HUFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELECHECK SERVICES, INC.; TeleCheck International, Inc.; First Data Corporation, Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"James Huff v. TeleCheck Servs., Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-03"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-5438"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: BATCHELDER, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0085p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n JAMES HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others ┐\\n similarly situated, │\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5438\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n TELECHECK SERVICES, INC.; TELECHECK │\\n INTERNATIONAL, INC.; FIRST DATA CORPORATION, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.\\n No. 3:14-cv-01832—Samuel H. Mays, Jr., District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: December 6, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 3, 2019\\n\\n Before: BATCHELDER, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Martin D. Holmes, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for\\nAppellant. David R. Esquivel, BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for\\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Martin D. Holmes, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Nashville,\\nTennessee, Scott A. Petz, Alma Sobo, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Troy, Michigan, for\\nAppellant. David R. Esquivel, Jeffrey P. Yarbro, Margaret V. Dodson, BASS, BERRY & SIMS\\nPLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees.\\n\\n SUTTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which BATCHELDER, J., joined.\\nWHITE, J. (pp. 15–18), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. This case deals with a fading technology (checks) and an\\nevergreen imperative (Article III standing). When a customer buys something with a check,\\nmerchants often consult a check verification company to determine whether to accept the check.\\nInvoking his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, James Huff requested a copy of his file\\nfrom a check verification company called TeleCheck. The report omitted that his driver’s\\nlicense was linked to six different bank accounts and omitted two transactions that occurred on\\nthose accounts. Huff filed this lawsuit under the Act. Because Huff has not shown that the\\nincomplete report injured him in any way, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his case for\\nlack of standing.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n When a retail consumer offers a check to a merchant, the customer usually provides a\\nform of identification such as a driver’s license. The merchant often takes the bank account\\nnumber on the check and the driver’s license number, called identifiers, and sends them to\\ncompanies like TeleCheck. TeleCheck runs each identifier through its system. If one of the\\nidentifiers has a debt on file, TeleCheck sends the merchant a “Code 4”—what the industry calls\\na negative decline. If there is not a debt on file, TeleCheck examines the customer’s check-\\nwriting history to determine whether to send a “Code 3”—what the industry calls a risk-based\\ndecline. If TeleCheck recommends a decline, the merchant refuses the customer’s check. If\\nthere are no debts on file and the customer presents a low risk, TeleCheck approves the\\ntransaction, and the merchant accepts the check.\\n\\n When a customer presents two identifiers in a transaction, TeleCheck records a link\\nbetween the identifiers in its system. If in a later transaction a customer uses only one of those\\nidentifiers, TeleCheck recommends a Code 4 decline if there is a debt associated with the\\npresented identifier or the linked identifier. Say a customer presents his driver’s license along\\nwith a check to buy milk. That links his license number and the account number on the check in\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nTeleCheck’s system. Then the customer bounces a check on the same account. Now, when the\\ncustomer tries to buy eggs with a check from a different account and presents his license,\\nTeleCheck will see that an identifier linked to the license—the bad bank account—shows a debt,\\nand it will issue a Code 4 decline. By contrast, linked identifiers play no role in TeleCheck’s\\nCode 3 decline recommendations.\\n\\n James Huff often pays by check. Inspired by a legal services advertisement, Huff\\nrequested a copy of his file from TeleCheck under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.\\n15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1). Huff provided TeleCheck with only a copy of his driver’s license. As\\na result, the report contained only the 23 transactions in which he presented his license during the\\npast year. But the report also told Huff that TeleCheck had more information. A bolded\\ndisclaimer at the bottom of the report read: “Linked Data: Your record is linked to information\\nnot included in this report, subject to identity verification prior to disclosure. Please contact\\nTeleCheck at 1-800-366-1435 to verify Monday-Friday 830am-430pm CST.” R. 78-6 at 3.\\n\\n Huff did not call. He sued.\\n\\n Huff’s driver’s license as it happens contains links to six different bank accounts: his\\nown account, his wife’s account, and four accounts that haven’t been used for years. The\\naccounts were linked because Huff had presented his license in transactions alongside checks\\nfrom each of the accounts. In addition to leaving off the linked accounts, the report did not\\nreveal two checks from those accounts over the past year that were not presented with Huff’s\\nlicense. One of the checks was from Huff’s own account, and one was from his wife’s.\\n\\n TeleCheck has never told a merchant to decline one of Huff’s checks due to his linked\\ninformation.\\n\\n After discovery, Huff moved for class certification, and TeleCheck moved for summary\\njudgment based on lack of standing. The district court dismissed the case because Huff lacked\\nstanding to bring it.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Article III of the United States Constitution limits the “judicial Power” of the federal\\ncourts to deciding “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. That limitation checks\\nthe power of the judicial branch by confining it to resolving concrete disputes, Spokeo, Inc. v.\\nRobins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016), and checks the power of the legislative branch by\\nprohibiting it from using the Judiciary as an adjunct to its own powers, see Hagy v. Demers &\\nAdams, 882 F.3d 616, 623 (6th Cir. 2018). To protect the vital, but limited all the same, role of\\nthe Judiciary in our system of government, the Constitution makes standing an indispensable\\ningredient of a judicial dispute.\\n\\n To establish standing, Huff had to show three things: (1) that he suffered an injury,\\n(2) caused by TeleCheck, (3) that a judicial decision could redress. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,\\n504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). The burden of establishing standing rests with Huff, and he must\\nprovide the allegations or evidence required at each stage of the litigation. Id. at 561. At\\nsummary judgment, the current stage of this litigation, Huff cannot rely on allegations alone but\\nmust set forth evidence demonstrating his standing.\\n\\n This case turns on the “[f]irst and foremost” prong of that inquiry, injury in fact. Steel\\nCo. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). An injury in fact must be real, not\\nabstract, actual, not theoretical, concrete, not amorphous. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548.\\n\\n Before turning to Huff’s efforts to satisfy this requirement, it is well to keep in mind a\\ndistinction that’s easy to miss in this area. There is a difference between failing to establish the\\nelements of a cause of action and failing to show an Article III injury. One is a failure of proof.\\nThe other is a failure of jurisdiction. Yes, there can be overlap between the two inquiries. But\\nthey are not one and the same.\\n\\n Consider the distinction from this vantage point. The Fair Credit Reporting Act creates a\\ncause of action that has three elements: (1) duty—a consumer agency must disclose “[a]ll\\ninformation in the consumer’s file” upon request; (2) breach of duty—any consumer agency that\\nfails to meet this requirement is liable to the affected individual; and (3) damages—the affected\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nindividual may recover $100 to $1000 for each willful violation. 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1); see id.\\n§ 1681n(a)(1)(A).\\n\\n In one way, Huff does not have a problem in establishing injury. In answering\\nTeleCheck’s motion for summary judgment, Huff went beyond mere allegations and tried to\\nprovide proof of each required element—including proof of a breach of duty that creates a\\nstatutory injury—of the cause of action. If he provided evidence checking each of these boxes,\\nthat indeed satisfies the requirements under the statute and indeed satisfies his burden of proof at\\nthis stage of the case when it comes to the elements of the cause of action.\\n\\n But that leaves a different question: Does Congress have authority to label this violation\\nof the statutory duty an Article III injury when it comes to Huff? After Spokeo, we know there is\\nno such thing as an “anything-hurts-so-long-as-Congress-says-it-hurts theory of Article III\\ninjury.” Hagy, 882 F.3d at 622. That requires us to assess whether enforcement of this cause of\\naction, as invoked by Huff and as applied to Huff, exceeds Congress’s power.\\n\\n We see three ways in which Huff potentially could satisfy Article III with this cause of\\naction. One, the statutory violation created an injury in fact as applied to him because it actually\\ninjured him when the violation led, say, to a check decline. Two, the statutory violation did not\\ninjure him in any traditional way, but the risk of injury was so imminent that it satisfies Article\\nIII. Three, the statutory violation did not create an injury in any traditional sense, but Congress\\nhad authority to establish the injury in view of its identification of meaningful risks of harm in\\nthis area. Each possibility deserves its turn.\\n\\n 1. Actual injury as applied to Huff? Huff’s lawsuit does not satisfy the first option. He\\ndoes not allege, much less prove, harm in the flesh-and-blood or dollars-and-cents sense of the\\nterm. By way of examples: He does not claim that TeleCheck’s conduct caused a declined\\ncheck or a denied rental application. He does not suggest that he wasted time or suffered\\nemotional distress while looking for his linked information. He does not contend that he would\\nhave done anything with the missing information had he received it—say, by adjusting his\\nspending habits. All in all, Huff acknowledges that TeleCheck’s incomplete report did not “have\\nany effect on [him] whatsoever.” R. 78-2 at 25.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n 2. Risk of imminent injury as applied to Huff? The second option does not work either.\\nThe record evidence does not show that TeleCheck created a risk that Huff would suffer a check\\ndecline—or any other harm covered by the statute—based on the checking activities of the\\nlinked accounts. Quite the opposite on this record.\\n\\n A material risk of harm, it is true, may establish standing. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549.\\nBut the “threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact.” Clapper v.\\nAmnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (quotation omitted); see Soehlen v. Fleet Owners\\nIns. Fund, 844 F.3d 576, 585 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n\\n The risk that TeleCheck’s incomplete disclosure would cause Huff to suffer a check\\ndecline was highly speculative. Four of the linked accounts (whose precise connection to Huff\\nthe record does not reveal) were last used between 2008 and 2010, making it a virtual certainty\\nthat no one would write a bad check on them today. One of the other linked accounts was Huff’s\\npersonal account, meaning he could not blame TeleCheck’s nondisclosure if he bounced a check\\non it. The remaining account belonged to Huff’s wife. For Huff to suffer a check decline based\\non her account, his wife would have to bounce a check with a TeleCheck merchant, the merchant\\nwould have to report the debt to TeleCheck, Huff’s wife would have to leave the debt\\nunresolved, and Huff would have to try to use a check at a TeleCheck merchant while presenting\\nhis driver’s license. The odds of that happening are remote. The inescapable truth is that Huff\\nhas not suffered a check decline in the five years since he requested his file from TeleCheck.\\n\\n The question, bear in mind, is not whether Huff faces some risk of a check decline in\\ngeneral but what additional risk of harm stems from TeleCheck’s nondisclosure of Huff’s\\ninformation. See Macy v. GC Servs. Ltd., 897 F.3d 747, 758 (6th Cir. 2018) (risk of harm must\\nstem from the procedural violation). That means we have to ask about the difference between\\nwhat Huff would have done with a report containing the linked information and what he did with\\nthe report he received. Huff offers no evidence that, had he received what he wanted, he would\\nhave tried to delink any accounts from his driver’s license. Nor has he done so since acquiring\\nthat information. Full disclosure by TeleCheck, in short, would not have reduced the risk a\\nmerchant would decline Huff’s check.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n Now that Huff has all the information he wants, any remaining risk of a check decline\\nflows from his failure to delink the accounts, not TeleCheck’s failure to disclose them in the first\\ninstance. Because Huff has the power to eliminate any lingering risk of a check decline based on\\na wrongly linked account, his risk of harm does not amount to a concrete injury caused by\\nTeleCheck. See Bassett v. ABM Parking Servs., Inc., 883 F.3d 776, 783 (9th Cir. 2018).\\n\\n Don’t forget one last point. TeleCheck alleviated any risk of harm by including the\\nlinked data disclaimer. The disclaimer warned Huff that his “record is linked to information not\\nincluded in this report” and instructed him to call to get his information. R. 78-6 at 3. Had he\\ndone so, Huff could have learned which accounts TeleCheck linked him to, determined if\\nTeleCheck linked him to any accounts mistakenly, and asked TeleCheck to delete any\\ninappropriate links. Courts assess injuries caused by the deprivation of information based not\\nonly on the information the consumer agency fails to provide but also on the information it does\\nprovide. Dreher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 856 F.3d 337, 346 (4th Cir. 2017). Because\\nTeleCheck enabled, indeed encouraged, Huff to access all the information he sought, its failure\\nto disclose the information created only a negligible risk that Huff would suffer a check decline.\\n\\n 3. Statutory violation as intangible injury in fact? In the absence of a tangible injury or\\nmaterial risk of harm, Huff offers a different theory of injury: a statutory violation that created a\\nprocedural or intangible injury. TeleCheck’s failure to provide him with his linked accounts and\\nthe two missing transactions, he says, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Act creates a\\nduty—that a consumer agency must disclose “[a]ll information in the consumer’s file” upon\\nrequest—and consequences for breaching that duty. 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1). And Huff has\\nprovided evidence of a breach of that duty. That’s all it takes, as Huff sees it, to create a\\ncognizable Article III injury.\\n\\n Huff is right and wrong.\\n\\n Huff is right that intangible injuries premised on statutory violations in some instances\\nmay satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549. Historical\\npractice and the judgment of Congress help to determine whether an intangible injury provides\\nArticle III standing. Id. Congress’s judgment is “instructive and important,” id., and it has some\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nauthority “to define injuries and articulate chains of causation,” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 580\\n(Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). When Congress confers a\\nprocedural right to protect a plaintiff’s concrete interests, a violation of that right may establish\\nthe requisite injury in fact. See Macy, 897 F.3d at 756.\\n\\n Huff is wrong that Congress’s authority to create Article III injuries has no boundaries,\\nsave limits to congressional imagination or congressional self-restraint. Separation-of-powers\\nconsiderations preserve an outer limit on Congress’s authority. “Article III standing requires a\\nconcrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549; see\\nLyshe v. Levy, 854 F.3d 855, 858 (6th Cir. 2017); Wall v. Mich. Rental, 852 F.3d 492, 495 (6th\\nCir. 2017). If a claimant has not suffered a genuine harm or risk of harm, a federal court has no\\nbusiness entertaining his lawsuit. Congress cannot conjure standing by declaring something\\nharmful that is not, by saying anything causes injury because the legislature says it causes injury.\\nHagy, 882 F.3d at 622. A difference remains between injury in law and injury in fact.\\nOtherwise Congress (or a state legislature) could create injuries in law that require the federal\\ncourts to issue advisory opinions.\\n\\n As is sometimes the case with tricky legal problems, the border between what Congress\\nmay do in creating cognizable intangible injuries and what it may not do remains elusive. The\\nMaginot Line comes to mind as a metaphor for our efforts. But that’s only because the federal\\ncourts have frequently allowed Congress to create intangible injuries in the first place, often for\\nlegitimate reasons. Still, the federal courts must preserve a line, some line. Else Congress\\nbecomes the author of the limitations on its own power, a problem of greater magnitude.\\nCf. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).\\n\\n Huff’s claim falls on the wrong side of this line. A few cases help to explain why, each\\ninvolving a statutory violation—and statutory injury—that did not necessarily result in standing.\\nStart with Spokeo v. Robins. 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). In that case, the Supreme Court noted that\\nCongress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act to curb the dissemination of false information.\\nId. at 1550. But it recognized that a violation of the law that results in the dissemination of an\\nobjectively false report does not necessarily cause a concrete harm if the disclosure has no\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nconsequences for the consumer. Id. “[A] bare procedural violation,” such as the dissemination\\nof an incorrect zip code, would not work a concrete harm for purposes of Article III. Id.\\n\\n Hagy v. Demers & Adams respected that principle and elaborated on how it works.\\n882 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2018). A creditor sent a letter to the lawyer of two debtors and allegedly\\nviolated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to disclose that it came from a debt\\ncollector. Id. at 619. Even if that action violated the Act, we held, the debtors lacked standing\\nbecause they could not point to any negative consequences, whether immediately or imminently,\\ncaused by the violation. Id. at 622.\\n\\n The Fourth Circuit looked at the problem the same way in a case arising under the Fair\\nCredit Reporting Act, the same law at issue here. Dreher, 856 F.3d at 340. A consumer\\nrequested and received his file from a credit agency under § 1681g. Id. The report did not name\\nthe correct source of information about one of his debts, as required by the Act, listing the name\\nof the debt’s original (but not current) owner. Id. at 341. But the contact information in the\\nreport connected the consumer to the right creditor all the same. Id. Because the procedurally\\ninadequate report did not “adversely affect[] [the consumer’s] conduct in any way,” the court\\nfound that the statutory violation did not harm the consumer’s interests under the Act. Id. at 347.\\n\\n All three cases lead to the same destination. TeleCheck’s alleged statutory violation did\\nnot harm Huff’s interests under the Fair Credit Reporting Act because it had no adverse\\nconsequences. In TeleCheck’s system, linked accounts play a role only when one of the\\naccounts lists an active debt. None of the six accounts linked to Huff’s driver’s license has ever\\nbeen associated with an outstanding debt. That means the “linked data never affected, altered, or\\ninfluenced a single consumer report on [Huff].” R. 81 at 4. By omitting the linked accounts and\\nthe missing transactions, TeleCheck at most prevented Huff from delinking those accounts from\\nhis driver’s license. But because the undisclosed information was irrelevant to any credit\\nassessment about Huff, delinking the accounts would not have had any effect.\\n\\n Behind all of this stands an important principle. Although Congress wields broad\\nauthority to define injuries, it does not have a blank check. Hagy, 882 F.3d at 623. Any other\\nconclusion would give Congress the final say over the injury-in-fact limitations in Article III, an\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\noutcome inconsistent with the architecture of the Constitution. The Framers feared an\\noverweening Congress, “every where extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power\\ninto its impetuous vortex.” The Federalist No. 48, at 241 (James Madison) (Terence Ball ed.,\\n2003). To fend off that possibility, they erected structural safeguards throughout the National\\nCharter. The horizontal separation of powers prevents Congress from flattening Article III’s\\nlimitations by defining harmless procedural violations—or for that matter anything at all—as\\ninjuries in fact. See Hagy, 882 F.3d at 623.\\n\\n All of this still leaves Congress with plenty of power to define and create intangible\\ninjuries. It just has to explain itself in a way it never did here. In the absence of an explanation\\nof how a seemingly harmless procedural violation constitutes a real injury, we are left with a\\ncanyon-sized gap between Congress’s authority and the problem it seeks to resolve.\\n\\n Two analogies come to mind.\\n\\n One comes from United States v. Lopez. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The Supreme Court\\ninvalidated a federal law banning firearms within a certain distance of any school on the ground\\nthat it exceeded Congress’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.” U.S.\\nConst. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; Lopez, 514 U.S. at 567. Among other explanations for its decision, the\\nCourt noted the lack of congressional findings explaining how the law regulated interstate\\ncommerce. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 562–63. Congress amended the statute to include such findings,\\nsee Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, § 320904,\\n108 Stat. 1796, 2125–26 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)); Lopez, 514 U.S. at 563\\nn.4, and to include an interstate-jurisdictional prerequisite for a prosecution, see Omnibus\\nConsolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 657, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-369–\\n71 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)). Since then, courts have upheld the amended\\nstatute. See, e.g., United States v. Dorsey, 418 F.3d 1038, 1046 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v.\\nDanks, 221 F.3d 1037, 1039 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).\\n\\n The other comes from City of Boerne v. Flores. 521 U.S. 507 (1997). The Court\\ninvalidated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as applied to the States because it exceeded\\nCongress’s enforcement power under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 536.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nAmong other explanations for its decision, the Court noted that Congress failed to provide a\\nlegislative record documenting any pattern of religious liberty violations that would justify\\nextending the Act’s protections beyond the Court’s decisions interpreting the Free Exercise\\nClause. Id. at 530–33. After the decision, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and\\nInstitutionalized Persons Act, which cut back on the scope of the law and supplied the necessary\\nrecord to support the new law. See 146 Cong. Rec. 16,698–700 (2000); H.R. Rep. No. 106-219,\\nat 18–24 (1999). Subsequent challenges to the new law have been rejected. See, e.g., Guru\\nNanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 993 (9th Cir. 2006); cf. Cutter v.\\nWilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 714 (2005).\\n\\n Congressional findings are neither necessary nor sufficient in every case. Congress is not\\nan administrative agency, bound to record the reasoning behind the statutes it enacts. See Turner\\nBroad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994) (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Nor will findings\\ninvariably salvage laws at the edge of congressional power. See United States v. Morrison,\\n529 U.S. 598, 614 (2000). But in the borderlands of congressional power to define intangible\\ninjuries that satisfy Article III, a vexing area under any circumstance, guidance about the ills a\\nstatute is meant to remedy can instruct and guide.\\n\\n Congress has not provided any such guidance here. Had it explained why the type of\\nincomplete disclosure Huff received constitutes an injury in fact, our analysis might well have\\nbeen different. But because Congress has not attempted to show how technical violations of the\\nFair Credit Reporting Act that carry no actual consequences or real risk of harm are concrete\\ninjuries, we must find that Huff has not been injured in this case.\\n\\n Huff tries to counter this conclusion on two grounds. Neither one is convincing.\\n\\n Huff insists that TeleCheck’s failure to disclose this information injured his concrete\\ninterests under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by “robb[ing] [him] of his right to monitor his file,”\\nwhich prevented him from disputing the accuracy of the links. Appellant’s Br. 33. Regardless\\nof whether he presented his driver’s license alongside checks from the six missing accounts, he\\nexplains, his license should not be linked to some of the accounts because they don’t belong to\\nhim, and he had no way of delinking them without knowing about them.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n Assume for now that TeleCheck wrongly linked Huff’s accounts. The linked information\\nnonetheless never made a difference in any credit determination, meaning its continued existence\\nin TeleCheck’s system did not harm Huff’s concrete economic interests. See Owner-Operator\\nIndep. Drivers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 879 F.3d 339, 345 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Confirming\\nthe point, Huff never took any action after receiving the undisclosed information, indicating he\\nwouldn’t have done anything even if he had received it earlier.\\n\\n Public Citizen v. U.S. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989), and FEC v. Akins,\\n524 U.S. 11 (1998), do not alter this conclusion. In those cases, the Court held that a deprivation\\nof information sufficed to provide standing because the plaintiffs would have used the\\ninformation to participate in the political process. See Akins, 524 U.S. at 21; Pub. Citizen, 491\\nU.S. at 449. Here, in contrast, TeleCheck’s incomplete report had no effect on Huff or his future\\nconduct. See Dreher, 856 F.3d at 346–47. The Act never attempts to show how a technical\\nimpairment of a consumer’s ability to monitor a credit report—that carries no actual\\nconsequences for the consumer—rises to the level of an Article III injury, even an Article III\\nintangible injury. See id. at 347. That leaves us with a “bare procedural violation,” attenuated\\nfrom any real harm or imminent risk of harm, that Congress cannot convert into Article III\\nstanding. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549; Hagy, 882 F.3d at 622.\\n\\n Huff argues that Macy v. GC Services Ltd. shows that the risk of a check decline created\\nby TeleCheck’s nondisclosure establishes standing. 897 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2018). Macy, to\\nstart, involved a different law: the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.\\nTwo debtors received a letter from a debt collector notifying them that their credit card accounts\\nhad been referred to the company for collection. Macy, 897 F.3d at 751. The letter informed the\\ndebtors that they could dispute their debt within 30 days, but it failed to say the dispute had to be\\n“in writing.” Id. That violated § 1692g(a), and the debtors sued. We found the debtors had\\nstanding because the debt collector’s failure to include the words “in writing” created a material\\nrisk the debtors might forfeit other protections for their concrete economic interests. Id. at 758.\\n\\n The Macy statute made a risk of harm far more likely than this law does. In enacting the\\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act, Congress sought to curb abusive debt collection activities.\\nId. at 756; see 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). In finding that the nondisclosure of the “in writing”\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nrequirement posed a material risk of harm, we observed that a written dispute triggered other\\nstatutory protections, such as forcing the debt collector to verify the debt and blocking the\\ncollector from collecting the debt until completing the verification. Macy, 897 F.3d at 758; see\\n15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). An oral dispute would forfeit those protections. Macy, 897 F.3d at 758.\\nBecause Congress tied the writing requirement to statutory protections of concrete economic\\ninterests, the failure to include the words “in writing” created a material risk of harm.\\n\\n The Fair Credit Reporting Act does not contain such interlocking statutory protections.\\nWhile it allows consumers to look into and correct information in their files, it does not provide a\\nshield from imminent economic harm in the way the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does.\\nThe Fair Credit Reporting Act’s main target is the dissemination of inaccurate and harmful\\ninformation, just as in Spokeo. See 136 S. Ct. at 1550. Because TeleCheck’s nondisclosure\\nnever harmed Huff, and because it did not create a material risk that Huff would suffer a check\\ndecline, Huff has not suffered an injury in fact.\\n\\n The difference between Macy and this case comes down to a difference in how Congress\\nexercised its power. In Macy, Congress did not trespass on Article III because the statutory\\nviolation was closely connected to real economic harm and thus amounted to an injury in fact. In\\nthis instance, Congress crossed the line. It has not shown how a deprivation of information that\\nneither holds consequences for the consumer nor imposes a real risk of harm creates an injury.\\nIn the absence of that showing, we have only Congress’s say-so, and that does not suffice—at\\nleast so long as the federal courts preserve the Constitution’s structural boundaries.\\n\\n The dissent claims that we have “declare[d] the Fair Credit Reporting Act\\nunconstitutional as exceeding Congress’s power to provide a judicial remedy for statutory\\nviolations.” Infra, at 15. That overstates. Just as no one can obtain an advisory opinion about\\nthe meaning of this law or any other, no one can enforce this law or any other without a concrete\\nArticle III injury in fact. And even in this case, our decision does not mean that TeleCheck’s\\nalleged violations must escape scrutiny. Regardless of Huff’s standing, the Federal Trade\\nCommission and other agencies have both the authority to enforce compliance with the Act and a\\nsovereign interest in doing so. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n That leaves a perspective that has not been raised in today’s case but may deserve\\nconsideration in a future case. As Justice Thomas has pointed out, Article III standing may draw\\na line between private and public rights. With respect to statutes creating private rights—that\\ncreate duties owed to the plaintiffs as individuals—a bare statutory violation may suffice to\\nestablish standing. But with respect to statutes creating public rights—that create duties owed to\\nthe community as a whole—a bare statutory violation may not suffice, and the plaintiff must\\nshow some individual harm beyond the violation. See Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1551–53 (Thomas,\\nJ., concurring); see also Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1046–47 (2019) (Thomas, J.,\\ndissenting). The theory deserves further consideration at some point. It seems to respect history\\nand cuts a path in otherwise forbidding terrain. See William Baude, Standing in the Shadow of\\nCongress, 2016 Sup. Ct. Rev. 197, 227–31; Ann Woolhandler & Caleb Nelson, Does History\\nDefeat Standing Doctrine?, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 689, 693–712 (2004). But the theory also raises\\nquestions of its own in an age of statutes. Whatever is true of Congress’s power to create\\nstanding by statute would seem to hold for state legislatures as well, posing another threat to\\nArticle III’s limits. And even if the dichotomy between public and private rights honors original\\nmeaning, what of laws that use nominally private rights as a way of commissioning private\\nattorneys general to enforce public regulatory schemes—a modern reality without obvious\\neighteenth-century heirs? What amounts to a public right and what amounts to a private right\\nmay not be easy to transpose today. Either way, clarification from Congress about whether a\\nright was meant to protect personal or public interests would ease the judicial task. For now,\\nunder Spokeo and our own decisions, Huff has failed to establish injury in fact.\\n\\n We affirm.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n DISSENT\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4393904/\", \"author_raw\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge\"}, {\"author\": \"HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The majority declares the Fair Credit\\nReporting Act (“FCRA”) unconstitutional as exceeding Congress’s power to provide a judicial\\nremedy for statutory violations.1 Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, Huff’s injury in fact was\\nsufficiently concrete to satisfy Article III standing requirements because (1) Congress conferred\\non consumers like Huff the right to request their entire file to protect their interest in having only\\naccurate information reported about them, and (2) TeleCheck’s failure to provide Huff’s entire\\nfile created a material risk that inaccurate information would be reported about him and he would\\nface a check decline. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.\\n\\n This court recently held that the violation of a procedural right granted by statute is\\nsufficient to constitute a concrete injury in fact where (1) “Congress conferred the procedural\\nright to protect a plaintiff’s concrete interests” and (2) “the procedural violation presents a\\nmaterial risk of real harm to that concrete interest.” Macy v. GC Services Limited Partnership,\\n897 F.3d 747, 756 (6th Cir. 2018). Both requirements are met here.\\n\\n First, Congress conferred on consumers like Huff the right to obtain their full file to\\nprotect their interest in not having false credit information reported about them. In enacting the\\nFCRA, “Congress plainly sought to curb the dissemination of false information by adopting\\nprocedures designed to decrease that risk.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1550 (2016).\\nOne such procedure is that “[u]pon request and identification, the reporting agency is required to\\ndivulge the information in its files concerning the interested consumer.” Hovater v. Equifax,\\nInc., 823 F.2d 413, 417 (11th Cir. 1987) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681g). “The purpose of the\\n[FCRA’s] disclosure requirement [in 15 U.S.C. § 1681g] is to provide the consumer with an\\nopportunity to dispute the accuracy of information in his file.” Hauser v. Equifax, Inc., 602 F.2d\\n811, 817 (8th Cir. 1979). Once the consumer identifies the allegedly inaccurate information, the\\nFCRA sets forth a detailed grievance procedure governing how to correct that inaccuracy.\\n\\n 1Although not stated, I presume this is an as-applied declaration of unconstitutionality.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\n15 U.S.C. § 1681i. In short, “[a] primary purpose[] of the statutory scheme provided by the\\ndisclosure in § 1681g(a)(1) is to allow consumers to identify inaccurate information in their\\ncredit files and correct this information via the grievance procedure established under § 1681i.”\\nGillespie v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 484 F.3d 938, 941 (7th Cir. 2007). Thus, Congress\\nconferred on consumers the procedural right to receive their file upon request to reduce the\\nconcrete risk that inaccurate information about them would be disclosed.\\n\\n Second, TeleCheck’s failure to provide Huff with the identifiers linked to him created a\\nmaterial risk of real harm. Unbeknownst to Huff, TeleCheck linked his driver’s license number\\nwith bank accounts that were not his. When Huff exercised his right to receive his file,\\nTeleCheck failed to disclose those bank accounts, and Huff therefore was unable to use the\\nFCRA’s grievance procedures to correct that information. Consequently, Huff was at risk of\\nharm if one of those accounts developed a debt and Huff presented his driver’s license while\\npaying by check.\\n\\n The majority disagrees that Huff faced a material risk of real harm, distinguishing Macy\\non the basis that unlike the protections in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) at\\nissue in Macy, the FCRA does not contain “such interlocking statutory protections.” (Maj. Op.\\nat 13.) However, the FCRA “interlocks” the consumer’s right to his file with his ability to\\ncorrect inaccurate information through the FCRA’s provided procedure. Moreover, it makes\\nsense that Congress would use different procedural protections given the different purposes of\\nthe FCRA and FDCPA. In other words, the method by which Congress chose to protect Huff’s\\ninterests under the FCRA is a function of the harm he faced. Just as notifying a debtor of the\\nactions required to preserve his rights minimizes the risk of abusive debt practices, enabling a\\nconsumer, well-situated to detect his own inaccurate information, to review his file minimizes\\nthe risk of the disclosure of an inaccurate credit report. By providing the incomplete file,\\nTeleCheck deprived Huff of the information necessary to dispute the errantly linked accounts\\nand thus created a material risk that if one of those accounts developed a debt, inaccurate\\ninformation would be reported about Huff, and Huff’s check would be declined. It appears that\\nthe majority’s real quarrel is with Macy itself; the majority would prefer a rule that requires the\\nplaintiff to show actual harm.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\n The cases relied on by the majority do not support the conclusion that there was no\\nmaterial risk of harm. Spokeo’s example of an incorrect zip code suggests a lower bar for risk of\\nharm than the bar set by the majority here. 136 S. Ct. at 1550. Erroneously linked identifying\\ninformation presents a far greater risk of harm than an incorrect zip code. Although it is hard to\\nimagine the risk of harm from an incorrect zip code, the risk of linking an individual to accounts\\nnot owned by him is apparent: TeleCheck effectively tied Huff’s creditworthiness to another\\nconsumer’s, and Huff faced the risk of TeleCheck erroneously reporting a negative credit\\nassessment solely because of that.\\n\\n Similarly, Hagy v. Demers & Adams, 882 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2018) is materially different\\nfrom this case because in Hagy, a creditor failed to provide the required disclosure on a letter in\\nwhich the creditor discharged a debt. 882 F.3d at 622. Thus, unlike in this case, the violation\\npresented no risk of harm because the creditor’s letter to the debtors was “good news.” Id.\\n\\n Finally, the majority’s reliance on Dreher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,\\n856 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2017) is misplaced for at least two reasons. Dreher applied the standard\\nfor informational injuries formulated by Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 828 F.3d 989 (D.C. Cir.\\n2016), relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Election Commission v. Akins,\\n524 U.S. 11 (1998). Under that standard, a plaintiff lacks standing unless he is “‘denied access\\nto information required to be disclosed by statute, and he ‘suffers, by being denied access to that\\ninformation, the type of harm Congress sought to prevent by requiring disclosure.’” 856 F.3d at\\n345-46 (quoting Jewell, 828 F.3d at 992) (emphasis omitted). That standard is different from the\\none based on Spokeo articulated by Macy because it requires that the consumer suffer a “harm”\\nrather than simply face the “risk” of harm. Macy, 897 F.3d at 756. Second, before the Dreher\\ncourt even considered whether the violation “adversely affected” the consumer’s conduct, it\\nconcluded that the harm the consumer claimed—what the court called a “customer-service”\\nharm—“is not the type of harm Congress sought to prevent when it enacted the FCRA.”\\n856 F.3d at 346. The court explained: “Failing to identify either a common law analogue or a\\nharm Congress sought to prevent, [the consumer] is left with a statutory violation divorced from\\nany real world effect.” Id. (emphasis added). Here, however, Huff claims a risk of harm to a\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\nconcrete interest that Congress sought to prevent—an inaccurate credit report based on bank\\naccounts that are not his.\\n\\n The majority also errs in suggesting that Congress should have “explain[ed] itself” and\\ndid not when it allowed a customer to sue after receiving an incomplete file. (Maj. Op. at 10.)\\nAs an initial matter, even if an explanation were necessary here, Congress did provide such an\\nexplanation. Rather than the “canyon-sized gap between Congress’s authority and the problem it\\nseeks to resolve” perceived by the majority (id.), Congress closely tied the right to disclosure of\\none’s entire file to the legitimate purpose of preventing the report of inaccurate information to\\nothers. Congress established the disclosure requirement to enable a consumer to correct\\ninaccurate information in his or her file, thereby reducing the risk of an inaccurate credit report.\\nMoreover, the majority supplies little basis for faulting Congress for failing to connect the\\nprocedural violation with the risk of harm. Spokeo does not impose such an obligation, and the\\nmajority’s only authority is its analogy to United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) and City\\nof Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). However, neither Lopez nor City of Boerne involved\\nlimits on Congress’s power to provide a judicial remedy for statutory harms under Article III\\nstanding requirements.\\n\\n For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4393904/\", \"author_raw\": \"HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BATCHELDER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SUTTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"WHITE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BATCHELDER\": \", Circuit\", \"SUTTON\": \", Circuit\", \"WHITE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4616651/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: James HUFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELECHECK SERVICES, INC.; TeleCheck International, Inc.; First Data Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-03\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0085p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n JAMES HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others ┐\n similarly situated, │\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\n │\n > No. 18-5438\n v. │\n │\n │\n TELECHECK SERVICES, INC.; TELECHECK │\n INTERNATIONAL, INC.; FIRST DATA CORPORATION, │\n Defendants-Appellees. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.\n No. 3:14-cv-01832—Samuel H. Mays, Jr., District Judge.\n\n Argued: December 6, 2018\n\n Decided and Filed: May 3, 2019\n\n Before: BATCHELDER, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Martin D. Holmes, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for\nAppellant. David R. Esquivel, BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Martin D. Holmes, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Nashville,\nTennessee, Scott A. Petz, Alma Sobo, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Troy, Michigan, for\nAppellant. David R. Esquivel, Jeffrey P. Yarbro, Margaret V. Dodson, BASS, BERRY & SIMS\nPLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees.\n\n SUTTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which BATCHELDER, J., joined.\nWHITE, J. (pp. 15–18), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 2\n\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. This case deals with a fading technology (checks) and an\nevergreen imperative (Article III standing). When a customer buys something with a check,\nmerchants often consult a check verification company to determine whether to accept the check.\nInvoking his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, James Huff requested a copy of his file\nfrom a check verification company called TeleCheck. The report omitted that his driver’s\nlicense was linked to six different bank accounts and omitted two transactions that occurred on\nthose accounts. Huff filed this lawsuit under the Act. Because Huff has not shown that the\nincomplete report injured him in any way, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his case for\nlack of standing.\n\n I.\n\n When a retail consumer offers a check to a merchant, the customer usually provides a\nform of identification such as a driver’s license. The merchant often takes the bank account\nnumber on the check and the driver’s license number, called identifiers, and sends them to\ncompanies like TeleCheck. TeleCheck runs each identifier through its system. If one of the\nidentifiers has a debt on file, TeleCheck sends the merchant a “Code 4”—what the industry calls\na negative decline. If there is not a debt on file, TeleCheck examines the customer’s check-\nwriting history to determine whether to send a “Code 3”—what the industry calls a risk-based\ndecline. If TeleCheck recommends a decline, the merchant refuses the customer’s check. If\nthere are no debts on file and the customer presents a low risk, TeleCheck approves the\ntransaction, and the merchant accepts the check.\n\n When a customer presents two identifiers in a transaction, TeleCheck records a link\nbetween the identifiers in its system. If in a later transaction a customer uses only one of those\nidentifiers, TeleCheck recommends a Code 4 decline if there is a debt associated with the\npresented identifier or the linked identifier. Say a customer presents his driver’s license along\nwith a check to buy milk. That links his license number and the account number on the check in\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 3\n\n\nTeleCheck’s system. Then the customer bounces a check on the same account. Now, when the\ncustomer tries to buy eggs with a check from a different account and presents his license,\nTeleCheck will see that an identifier linked to the license—the bad bank account—shows a debt,\nand it will issue a Code 4 decline. By contrast, linked identifiers play no role in TeleCheck’s\nCode 3 decline recommendations.\n\n James Huff often pays by check. Inspired by a legal services advertisement, Huff\nrequested a copy of his file from TeleCheck under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.\n15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1). Huff provided TeleCheck with only a copy of his driver’s license. As\na result, the report contained only the 23 transactions in which he presented his license during the\npast year. But the report also told Huff that TeleCheck had more information. A bolded\ndisclaimer at the bottom of the report read: “Linked Data: Your record is linked to information\nnot included in this report, subject to identity verification prior to disclosure. Please contact\nTeleCheck at 1-800-366-1435 to verify Monday-Friday 830am-430pm CST.” R. 78-6 at 3.\n\n Huff did not call. He sued.\n\n Huff’s driver’s license as it happens contains links to six different bank accounts: his\nown account, his wife’s account, and four accounts that haven’t been used for years. The\naccounts were linked because Huff had presented his license in transactions alongside checks\nfrom each of the accounts. In addition to leaving off the linked accounts, the report did not\nreveal two checks from those accounts over the past year that were not presented with Huff’s\nlicense. One of the checks was from Huff’s own account, and one was from his wife’s.\n\n TeleCheck has never told a merchant to decline one of Huff’s checks due to his linked\ninformation.\n\n After discovery, Huff moved for class certification, and TeleCheck moved for summary\njudgment based on lack of standing. The district court dismissed the case because Huff lacked\nstanding to bring it.\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 4\n\n\n II.\n\n Article III of the United States Constitution limits the “judicial Power” of the federal\ncourts to deciding “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. That limitation checks\nthe power of the judicial branch by confining it to resolving concrete disputes, Spokeo, Inc. v.\nRobins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016), and checks the power of the legislative branch by\nprohibiting it from using the Judiciary as an adjunct to its own powers, see Hagy v. Demers &\nAdams, 882 F.3d 616, 623 (6th Cir. 2018). To protect the vital, but limited all the same, role of\nthe Judiciary in our system of government, the Constitution makes standing an indispensable\ningredient of a judicial dispute.\n\n To establish standing, Huff had to show three things: (1) that he suffered an injury,\n(2) caused by TeleCheck, (3) that a judicial decision could redress. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,\n504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). The burden of establishing standing rests with Huff, and he must\nprovide the allegations or evidence required at each stage of the litigation. Id. at 561. At\nsummary judgment, the current stage of this litigation, Huff cannot rely on allegations alone but\nmust set forth evidence demonstrating his standing.\n\n This case turns on the “[f]irst and foremost” prong of that inquiry, injury in fact. Steel\nCo. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). An injury in fact must be real, not\nabstract, actual, not theoretical, concrete, not amorphous. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548.\n\n Before turning to Huff’s efforts to satisfy this requirement, it is well to keep in mind a\ndistinction that’s easy to miss in this area. There is a difference between failing to establish the\nelements of a cause of action and failing to show an Article III injury. One is a failure of proof.\nThe other is a failure of jurisdiction. Yes, there can be overlap between the two inquiries. But\nthey are not one and the same.\n\n Consider the distinction from this vantage point. The Fair Credit Reporting Act creates a\ncause of action that has three elements: (1) duty—a consumer agency must disclose “[a]ll\ninformation in the consumer’s file” upon request; (2) breach of duty—any consumer agency that\nfails to meet this requirement is liable to the affected individual; and (3) damages—the affected\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 5\n\n\nindividual may recover $100 to $1000 for each willful violation. 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1); see id.\n§ 1681n(a)(1)(A).\n\n In one way, Huff does not have a problem in establishing injury. In answering\nTeleCheck’s motion for summary judgment, Huff went beyond mere allegations and tried to\nprovide proof of each required element—including proof of a breach of duty that creates a\nstatutory injury—of the cause of action. If he provided evidence checking each of these boxes,\nthat indeed satisfies the requirements under the statute and indeed satisfies his burden of proof at\nthis stage of the case when it comes to the elements of the cause of action.\n\n But that leaves a different question: Does Congress have authority to label this violation\nof the statutory duty an Article III injury when it comes to Huff? After Spokeo, we know there is\nno such thing as an “anything-hurts-so-long-as-Congress-says-it-hurts theory of Article III\ninjury.” Hagy, 882 F.3d at 622. That requires us to assess whether enforcement of this cause of\naction, as invoked by Huff and as applied to Huff, exceeds Congress’s power.\n\n We see three ways in which Huff potentially could satisfy Article III with this cause of\naction. One, the statutory violation created an injury in fact as applied to him because it actually\ninjured him when the violation led, say, to a check decline. Two, the statutory violation did not\ninjure him in any traditional way, but the risk of injury was so imminent that it satisfies Article\nIII. Three, the statutory violation did not create an injury in any traditional sense, but Congress\nhad authority to establish the injury in view of its identification of meaningful risks of harm in\nthis area. Each possibility deserves its turn.\n\n 1. Actual injury as applied to Huff? Huff’s lawsuit does not satisfy the first option. He\ndoes not allege, much less prove, harm in the flesh-and-blood or dollars-and-cents sense of the\nterm. By way of examples: He does not claim that TeleCheck’s conduct caused a declined\ncheck or a denied rental application. He does not suggest that he wasted time or suffered\nemotional distress while looking for his linked information. He does not contend that he would\nhave done anything with the missing information had he received it—say, by adjusting his\nspending habits. All in all, Huff acknowledges that TeleCheck’s incomplete report did not “have\nany effect on [him] whatsoever.” R. 78-2 at 25.\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 6\n\n\n 2. Risk of imminent injury as applied to Huff? The second option does not work either.\nThe record evidence does not show that TeleCheck created a risk that Huff would suffer a check\ndecline—or any other harm covered by the statute—based on the checking activities of the\nlinked accounts. Quite the opposite on this record.\n\n A material risk of harm, it is true, may establish standing. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549.\nBut the “threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact.” Clapper v.\nAmnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (quotation omitted); see Soehlen v. Fleet Owners\nIns. Fund, 844 F.3d 576, 585 (6th Cir. 2017).\n\n The risk that TeleCheck’s incomplete disclosure would cause Huff to suffer a check\ndecline was highly speculative. Four of the linked accounts (whose precise connection to Huff\nthe record does not reveal) were last used between 2008 and 2010, making it a virtual certainty\nthat no one would write a bad check on them today. One of the other linked accounts was Huff’s\npersonal account, meaning he could not blame TeleCheck’s nondisclosure if he bounced a check\non it. The remaining account belonged to Huff’s wife. For Huff to suffer a check decline based\non her account, his wife would have to bounce a check with a TeleCheck merchant, the merchant\nwould have to report the debt to TeleCheck, Huff’s wife would have to leave the debt\nunresolved, and Huff would have to try to use a check at a TeleCheck merchant while presenting\nhis driver’s license. The odds of that happening are remote. The inescapable truth is that Huff\nhas not suffered a check decline in the five years since he requested his file from TeleCheck.\n\n The question, bear in mind, is not whether Huff faces some risk of a check decline in\ngeneral but what additional risk of harm stems from TeleCheck’s nondisclosure of Huff’s\ninformation. See Macy v. GC Servs. Ltd., 897 F.3d 747, 758 (6th Cir. 2018) (risk of harm must\nstem from the procedural violation). That means we have to ask about the difference between\nwhat Huff would have done with a report containing the linked information and what he did with\nthe report he received. Huff offers no evidence that, had he received what he wanted, he would\nhave tried to delink any accounts from his driver’s license. Nor has he done so since acquiring\nthat information. Full disclosure by TeleCheck, in short, would not have reduced the risk a\nmerchant would decline Huff’s check.\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 7\n\n\n Now that Huff has all the information he wants, any remaining risk of a check decline\nflows from his failure to delink the accounts, not TeleCheck’s failure to disclose them in the first\ninstance. Because Huff has the power to eliminate any lingering risk of a check decline based on\na wrongly linked account, his risk of harm does not amount to a concrete injury caused by\nTeleCheck. See Bassett v. ABM Parking Servs., Inc., 883 F.3d 776, 783 (9th Cir. 2018).\n\n Don’t forget one last point. TeleCheck alleviated any risk of harm by including the\nlinked data disclaimer. The disclaimer warned Huff that his “record is linked to information not\nincluded in this report” and instructed him to call to get his information. R. 78-6 at 3. Had he\ndone so, Huff could have learned which accounts TeleCheck linked him to, determined if\nTeleCheck linked him to any accounts mistakenly, and asked TeleCheck to delete any\ninappropriate links. Courts assess injuries caused by the deprivation of information based not\nonly on the information the consumer agency fails to provide but also on the information it does\nprovide. Dreher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 856 F.3d 337, 346 (4th Cir. 2017). Because\nTeleCheck enabled, indeed encouraged, Huff to access all the information he sought, its failure\nto disclose the information created only a negligible risk that Huff would suffer a check decline.\n\n 3. Statutory violation as intangible injury in fact? In the absence of a tangible injury or\nmaterial risk of harm, Huff offers a different theory of injury: a statutory violation that created a\nprocedural or intangible injury. TeleCheck’s failure to provide him with his linked accounts and\nthe two missing transactions, he says, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Act creates a\nduty—that a consumer agency must disclose “[a]ll information in the consumer’s file” upon\nrequest—and consequences for breaching that duty. 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1). And Huff has\nprovided evidence of a breach of that duty. That’s all it takes, as Huff sees it, to create a\ncognizable Article III injury.\n\n Huff is right and wrong.\n\n Huff is right that intangible injuries premised on statutory violations in some instances\nmay satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549. Historical\npractice and the judgment of Congress help to determine whether an intangible injury provides\nArticle III standing. Id. Congress’s judgment is “instructive and important,” id., and it has some\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 8\n\n\nauthority “to define injuries and articulate chains of causation,” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 580\n(Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). When Congress confers a\nprocedural right to protect a plaintiff’s concrete interests, a violation of that right may establish\nthe requisite injury in fact. See Macy, 897 F.3d at 756.\n\n Huff is wrong that Congress’s authority to create Article III injuries has no boundaries,\nsave limits to congressional imagination or congressional self-restraint. Separation-of-powers\nconsiderations preserve an outer limit on Congress’s authority. “Article III standing requires a\nconcrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549; see\nLyshe v. Levy, 854 F.3d 855, 858 (6th Cir. 2017); Wall v. Mich. Rental, 852 F.3d 492, 495 (6th\nCir. 2017). If a claimant has not suffered a genuine harm or risk of harm, a federal court has no\nbusiness entertaining his lawsuit. Congress cannot conjure standing by declaring something\nharmful that is not, by saying anything causes injury because the legislature says it causes injury.\nHagy, 882 F.3d at 622. A difference remains between injury in law and injury in fact.\nOtherwise Congress (or a state legislature) could create injuries in law that require the federal\ncourts to issue advisory opinions.\n\n As is sometimes the case with tricky legal problems, the border between what Congress\nmay do in creating cognizable intangible injuries and what it may not do remains elusive. The\nMaginot Line comes to mind as a metaphor for our efforts. But that’s only because the federal\ncourts have frequently allowed Congress to create intangible injuries in the first place, often for\nlegitimate reasons. Still, the federal courts must preserve a line, some line. Else Congress\nbecomes the author of the limitations on its own power, a problem of greater magnitude.\nCf. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).\n\n Huff’s claim falls on the wrong side of this line. A few cases help to explain why, each\ninvolving a statutory violation—and statutory injury—that did not necessarily result in standing.\nStart with Spokeo v. Robins. 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). In that case, the Supreme Court noted that\nCongress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act to curb the dissemination of false information.\nId. at 1550. But it recognized that a violation of the law that results in the dissemination of an\nobjectively false report does not necessarily cause a concrete harm if the disclosure has no\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 9\n\n\nconsequences for the consumer. Id. “[A] bare procedural violation,” such as the dissemination\nof an incorrect zip code, would not work a concrete harm for purposes of Article III. Id.\n\n Hagy v. Demers & Adams respected that principle and elaborated on how it works.\n882 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2018). A creditor sent a letter to the lawyer of two debtors and allegedly\nviolated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to disclose that it came from a debt\ncollector. Id. at 619. Even if that action violated the Act, we held, the debtors lacked standing\nbecause they could not point to any negative consequences, whether immediately or imminently,\ncaused by the violation. Id. at 622.\n\n The Fourth Circuit looked at the problem the same way in a case arising under the Fair\nCredit Reporting Act, the same law at issue here. Dreher, 856 F.3d at 340. A consumer\nrequested and received his file from a credit agency under § 1681g. Id. The report did not name\nthe correct source of information about one of his debts, as required by the Act, listing the name\nof the debt’s original (but not current) owner. Id. at 341. But the contact information in the\nreport connected the consumer to the right creditor all the same. Id. Because the procedurally\ninadequate report did not “adversely affect[] [the consumer’s] conduct in any way,” the court\nfound that the statutory violation did not harm the consumer’s interests under the Act. Id. at 347.\n\n All three cases lead to the same destination. TeleCheck’s alleged statutory violation did\nnot harm Huff’s interests under the Fair Credit Reporting Act because it had no adverse\nconsequences. In TeleCheck’s system, linked accounts play a role only when one of the\naccounts lists an active debt. None of the six accounts linked to Huff’s driver’s license has ever\nbeen associated with an outstanding debt. That means the “linked data never affected, altered, or\ninfluenced a single consumer report on [Huff].” R. 81 at 4. By omitting the linked accounts and\nthe missing transactions, TeleCheck at most prevented Huff from delinking those accounts from\nhis driver’s license. But because the undisclosed information was irrelevant to any credit\nassessment about Huff, delinking the accounts would not have had any effect.\n\n Behind all of this stands an important principle. Although Congress wields broad\nauthority to define injuries, it does not have a blank check. Hagy, 882 F.3d at 623. Any other\nconclusion would give Congress the final say over the injury-in-fact limitations in Article III, an\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 10\n\n\noutcome inconsistent with the architecture of the Constitution. The Framers feared an\noverweening Congress, “every where extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power\ninto its impetuous vortex.” The Federalist No. 48, at 241 (James Madison) (Terence Ball ed.,\n2003). To fend off that possibility, they erected structural safeguards throughout the National\nCharter. The horizontal separation of powers prevents Congress from flattening Article III’s\nlimitations by defining harmless procedural violations—or for that matter anything at all—as\ninjuries in fact. See Hagy, 882 F.3d at 623.\n\n All of this still leaves Congress with plenty of power to define and create intangible\ninjuries. It just has to explain itself in a way it never did here. In the absence of an explanation\nof how a seemingly harmless procedural violation constitutes a real injury, we are left with a\ncanyon-sized gap between Congress’s authority and the problem it seeks to resolve.\n\n Two analogies come to mind.\n\n One comes from United States v. Lopez. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The Supreme Court\ninvalidated a federal law banning firearms within a certain distance of any school on the ground\nthat it exceeded Congress’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.” U.S.\nConst. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; Lopez, 514 U.S. at 567. Among other explanations for its decision, the\nCourt noted the lack of congressional findings explaining how the law regulated interstate\ncommerce. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 562–63. Congress amended the statute to include such findings,\nsee Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, § 320904,\n108 Stat. 1796, 2125–26 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)); Lopez, 514 U.S. at 563\nn.4, and to include an interstate-jurisdictional prerequisite for a prosecution, see Omnibus\nConsolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 657, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-369–\n71 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)). Since then, courts have upheld the amended\nstatute. See, e.g., United States v. Dorsey, 418 F.3d 1038, 1046 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v.\nDanks, 221 F.3d 1037, 1039 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).\n\n The other comes from City of Boerne v. Flores. 521 U.S. 507 (1997). The Court\ninvalidated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as applied to the States because it exceeded\nCongress’s enforcement power under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 536.\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 11\n\n\nAmong other explanations for its decision, the Court noted that Congress failed to provide a\nlegislative record documenting any pattern of religious liberty violations that would justify\nextending the Act’s protections beyond the Court’s decisions interpreting the Free Exercise\nClause. Id. at 530–33. After the decision, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and\nInstitutionalized Persons Act, which cut back on the scope of the law and supplied the necessary\nrecord to support the new law. See 146 Cong. Rec. 16,698–700 (2000); H.R. Rep. No. 106-219,\nat 18–24 (1999). Subsequent challenges to the new law have been rejected. See, e.g., Guru\nNanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 993 (9th Cir. 2006); cf. Cutter v.\nWilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 714 (2005).\n\n Congressional findings are neither necessary nor sufficient in every case. Congress is not\nan administrative agency, bound to record the reasoning behind the statutes it enacts. See Turner\nBroad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994) (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Nor will findings\ninvariably salvage laws at the edge of congressional power. See United States v. Morrison,\n529 U.S. 598, 614 (2000). But in the borderlands of congressional power to define intangible\ninjuries that satisfy Article III, a vexing area under any circumstance, guidance about the ills a\nstatute is meant to remedy can instruct and guide.\n\n Congress has not provided any such guidance here. Had it explained why the type of\nincomplete disclosure Huff received constitutes an injury in fact, our analysis might well have\nbeen different. But because Congress has not attempted to show how technical violations of the\nFair Credit Reporting Act that carry no actual consequences or real risk of harm are concrete\ninjuries, we must find that Huff has not been injured in this case.\n\n Huff tries to counter this conclusion on two grounds. Neither one is convincing.\n\n Huff insists that TeleCheck’s failure to disclose this information injured his concrete\ninterests under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by “robb[ing] [him] of his right to monitor his file,”\nwhich prevented him from disputing the accuracy of the links. Appellant’s Br. 33. Regardless\nof whether he presented his driver’s license alongside checks from the six missing accounts, he\nexplains, his license should not be linked to some of the accounts because they don’t belong to\nhim, and he had no way of delinking them without knowing about them.\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 12\n\n\n Assume for now that TeleCheck wrongly linked Huff’s accounts. The linked information\nnonetheless never made a difference in any credit determination, meaning its continued existence\nin TeleCheck’s system did not harm Huff’s concrete economic interests. See Owner-Operator\nIndep. Drivers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 879 F.3d 339, 345 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Confirming\nthe point, Huff never took any action after receiving the undisclosed information, indicating he\nwouldn’t have done anything even if he had received it earlier.\n\n Public Citizen v. U.S. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989), and FEC v. Akins,\n524 U.S. 11 (1998), do not alter this conclusion. In those cases, the Court held that a deprivation\nof information sufficed to provide standing because the plaintiffs would have used the\ninformation to participate in the political process. See Akins, 524 U.S. at 21; Pub. Citizen, 491\nU.S. at 449. Here, in contrast, TeleCheck’s incomplete report had no effect on Huff or his future\nconduct. See Dreher, 856 F.3d at 346–47. The Act never attempts to show how a technical\nimpairment of a consumer’s ability to monitor a credit report—that carries no actual\nconsequences for the consumer—rises to the level of an Article III injury, even an Article III\nintangible injury. See id. at 347. That leaves us with a “bare procedural violation,” attenuated\nfrom any real harm or imminent risk of harm, that Congress cannot convert into Article III\nstanding. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549; Hagy, 882 F.3d at 622.\n\n Huff argues that Macy v. GC Services Ltd. shows that the risk of a check decline created\nby TeleCheck’s nondisclosure establishes standing. 897 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2018). Macy, to\nstart, involved a different law: the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.\nTwo debtors received a letter from a debt collector notifying them that their credit card accounts\nhad been referred to the company for collection. Macy, 897 F.3d at 751. The letter informed the\ndebtors that they could dispute their debt within 30 days, but it failed to say the dispute had to be\n“in writing.” Id. That violated § 1692g(a), and the debtors sued. We found the debtors had\nstanding because the debt collector’s failure to include the words “in writing” created a material\nrisk the debtors might forfeit other protections for their concrete economic interests. Id. at 758.\n\n The Macy statute made a risk of harm far more likely than this law does. In enacting the\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act, Congress sought to curb abusive debt collection activities.\nId. at 756; see 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). In finding that the nondisclosure of the “in writing”\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 13\n\n\nrequirement posed a material risk of harm, we observed that a written dispute triggered other\nstatutory protections, such as forcing the debt collector to verify the debt and blocking the\ncollector from collecting the debt until completing the verification. Macy, 897 F.3d at 758; see\n15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). An oral dispute would forfeit those protections. Macy, 897 F.3d at 758.\nBecause Congress tied the writing requirement to statutory protections of concrete economic\ninterests, the failure to include the words “in writing” created a material risk of harm.\n\n The Fair Credit Reporting Act does not contain such interlocking statutory protections.\nWhile it allows consumers to look into and correct information in their files, it does not provide a\nshield from imminent economic harm in the way the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does.\nThe Fair Credit Reporting Act’s main target is the dissemination of inaccurate and harmful\ninformation, just as in Spokeo. See 136 S. Ct. at 1550. Because TeleCheck’s nondisclosure\nnever harmed Huff, and because it did not create a material risk that Huff would suffer a check\ndecline, Huff has not suffered an injury in fact.\n\n The difference between Macy and this case comes down to a difference in how Congress\nexercised its power. In Macy, Congress did not trespass on Article III because the statutory\nviolation was closely connected to real economic harm and thus amounted to an injury in fact. In\nthis instance, Congress crossed the line. It has not shown how a deprivation of information that\nneither holds consequences for the consumer nor imposes a real risk of harm creates an injury.\nIn the absence of that showing, we have only Congress’s say-so, and that does not suffice—at\nleast so long as the federal courts preserve the Constitution’s structural boundaries.\n\n The dissent claims that we have “declare[d] the Fair Credit Reporting Act\nunconstitutional as exceeding Congress’s power to provide a judicial remedy for statutory\nviolations.” Infra, at 15. That overstates. Just as no one can obtain an advisory opinion about\nthe meaning of this law or any other, no one can enforce this law or any other without a concrete\nArticle III injury in fact. And even in this case, our decision does not mean that TeleCheck’s\nalleged violations must escape scrutiny. Regardless of Huff’s standing, the Federal Trade\nCommission and other agencies have both the authority to enforce compliance with the Act and a\nsovereign interest in doing so. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s.\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 14\n\n\n That leaves a perspective that has not been raised in today’s case but may deserve\nconsideration in a future case. As Justice Thomas has pointed out, Article III standing may draw\na line between private and public rights. With respect to statutes creating private rights—that\ncreate duties owed to the plaintiffs as individuals—a bare statutory violation may suffice to\nestablish standing. But with respect to statutes creating public rights—that create duties owed to\nthe community as a whole—a bare statutory violation may not suffice, and the plaintiff must\nshow some individual harm beyond the violation. See Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1551–53 (Thomas,\nJ., concurring); see also Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1046–47 (2019) (Thomas, J.,\ndissenting). The theory deserves further consideration at some point. It seems to respect history\nand cuts a path in otherwise forbidding terrain. See William Baude, Standing in the Shadow of\nCongress, 2016 Sup. Ct. Rev. 197, 227–31; Ann Woolhandler & Caleb Nelson, Does History\nDefeat Standing Doctrine?, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 689, 693–712 (2004). But the theory also raises\nquestions of its own in an age of statutes. Whatever is true of Congress’s power to create\nstanding by statute would seem to hold for state legislatures as well, posing another threat to\nArticle III’s limits. And even if the dichotomy between public and private rights honors original\nmeaning, what of laws that use nominally private rights as a way of commissioning private\nattorneys general to enforce public regulatory schemes—a modern reality without obvious\neighteenth-century heirs? What amounts to a public right and what amounts to a private right\nmay not be easy to transpose today. Either way, clarification from Congress about whether a\nright was meant to protect personal or public interests would ease the judicial task. For now,\nunder Spokeo and our own decisions, Huff has failed to establish injury in fact.\n\n We affirm.\n\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 15\n\n\n _________________\n\n DISSENT\n _________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: James HUFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELECHECK SERVICES, INC.; TeleCheck International, Inc.; First Data Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-03\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0085p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n JAMES HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others ┐\\n similarly situated, │\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5438\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n TELECHECK SERVICES, INC.; TELECHECK │\\n INTERNATIONAL, INC.; FIRST DATA CORPORATION, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.\\n No. 3:14-cv-01832—Samuel H. Mays, Jr., District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: December 6, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 3, 2019\\n\\n Before: BATCHELDER, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Martin D. Holmes, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for\\nAppellant. David R. Esquivel, BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for\\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Martin D. Holmes, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Nashville,\\nTennessee, Scott A. Petz, Alma Sobo, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Troy, Michigan, for\\nAppellant. David R. Esquivel, Jeffrey P. Yarbro, Margaret V. Dodson, BASS, BERRY & SIMS\\nPLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees.\\n\\n SUTTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which BATCHELDER, J., joined.\\nWHITE, J. (pp. 15–18), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. This case deals with a fading technology (checks) and an\\nevergreen imperative (Article III standing). When a customer buys something with a check,\\nmerchants often consult a check verification company to determine whether to accept the check.\\nInvoking his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, James Huff requested a copy of his file\\nfrom a check verification company called TeleCheck. The report omitted that his driver’s\\nlicense was linked to six different bank accounts and omitted two transactions that occurred on\\nthose accounts. Huff filed this lawsuit under the Act. Because Huff has not shown that the\\nincomplete report injured him in any way, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his case for\\nlack of standing.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n When a retail consumer offers a check to a merchant, the customer usually provides a\\nform of identification such as a driver’s license. The merchant often takes the bank account\\nnumber on the check and the driver’s license number, called identifiers, and sends them to\\ncompanies like TeleCheck. TeleCheck runs each identifier through its system. If one of the\\nidentifiers has a debt on file, TeleCheck sends the merchant a “Code 4”—what the industry calls\\na negative decline. If there is not a debt on file, TeleCheck examines the customer’s check-\\nwriting history to determine whether to send a “Code 3”—what the industry calls a risk-based\\ndecline. If TeleCheck recommends a decline, the merchant refuses the customer’s check. If\\nthere are no debts on file and the customer presents a low risk, TeleCheck approves the\\ntransaction, and the merchant accepts the check.\\n\\n When a customer presents two identifiers in a transaction, TeleCheck records a link\\nbetween the identifiers in its system. If in a later transaction a customer uses only one of those\\nidentifiers, TeleCheck recommends a Code 4 decline if there is a debt associated with the\\npresented identifier or the linked identifier. Say a customer presents his driver’s license along\\nwith a check to buy milk. That links his license number and the account number on the check in\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nTeleCheck’s system. Then the customer bounces a check on the same account. Now, when the\\ncustomer tries to buy eggs with a check from a different account and presents his license,\\nTeleCheck will see that an identifier linked to the license—the bad bank account—shows a debt,\\nand it will issue a Code 4 decline. By contrast, linked identifiers play no role in TeleCheck’s\\nCode 3 decline recommendations.\\n\\n James Huff often pays by check. Inspired by a legal services advertisement, Huff\\nrequested a copy of his file from TeleCheck under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.\\n15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1). Huff provided TeleCheck with only a copy of his driver’s license. As\\na result, the report contained only the 23 transactions in which he presented his license during the\\npast year. But the report also told Huff that TeleCheck had more information. A bolded\\ndisclaimer at the bottom of the report read: “Linked Data: Your record is linked to information\\nnot included in this report, subject to identity verification prior to disclosure. Please contact\\nTeleCheck at 1-800-366-1435 to verify Monday-Friday 830am-430pm CST.” R. 78-6 at 3.\\n\\n Huff did not call. He sued.\\n\\n Huff’s driver’s license as it happens contains links to six different bank accounts: his\\nown account, his wife’s account, and four accounts that haven’t been used for years. The\\naccounts were linked because Huff had presented his license in transactions alongside checks\\nfrom each of the accounts. In addition to leaving off the linked accounts, the report did not\\nreveal two checks from those accounts over the past year that were not presented with Huff’s\\nlicense. One of the checks was from Huff’s own account, and one was from his wife’s.\\n\\n TeleCheck has never told a merchant to decline one of Huff’s checks due to his linked\\ninformation.\\n\\n After discovery, Huff moved for class certification, and TeleCheck moved for summary\\njudgment based on lack of standing. The district court dismissed the case because Huff lacked\\nstanding to bring it.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Article III of the United States Constitution limits the “judicial Power” of the federal\\ncourts to deciding “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. That limitation checks\\nthe power of the judicial branch by confining it to resolving concrete disputes, Spokeo, Inc. v.\\nRobins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016), and checks the power of the legislative branch by\\nprohibiting it from using the Judiciary as an adjunct to its own powers, see Hagy v. Demers &\\nAdams, 882 F.3d 616, 623 (6th Cir. 2018). To protect the vital, but limited all the same, role of\\nthe Judiciary in our system of government, the Constitution makes standing an indispensable\\ningredient of a judicial dispute.\\n\\n To establish standing, Huff had to show three things: (1) that he suffered an injury,\\n(2) caused by TeleCheck, (3) that a judicial decision could redress. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,\\n504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). The burden of establishing standing rests with Huff, and he must\\nprovide the allegations or evidence required at each stage of the litigation. Id. at 561. At\\nsummary judgment, the current stage of this litigation, Huff cannot rely on allegations alone but\\nmust set forth evidence demonstrating his standing.\\n\\n This case turns on the “[f]irst and foremost” prong of that inquiry, injury in fact. Steel\\nCo. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). An injury in fact must be real, not\\nabstract, actual, not theoretical, concrete, not amorphous. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548.\\n\\n Before turning to Huff’s efforts to satisfy this requirement, it is well to keep in mind a\\ndistinction that’s easy to miss in this area. There is a difference between failing to establish the\\nelements of a cause of action and failing to show an Article III injury. One is a failure of proof.\\nThe other is a failure of jurisdiction. Yes, there can be overlap between the two inquiries. But\\nthey are not one and the same.\\n\\n Consider the distinction from this vantage point. The Fair Credit Reporting Act creates a\\ncause of action that has three elements: (1) duty—a consumer agency must disclose “[a]ll\\ninformation in the consumer’s file” upon request; (2) breach of duty—any consumer agency that\\nfails to meet this requirement is liable to the affected individual; and (3) damages—the affected\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nindividual may recover $100 to $1000 for each willful violation. 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1); see id.\\n§ 1681n(a)(1)(A).\\n\\n In one way, Huff does not have a problem in establishing injury. In answering\\nTeleCheck’s motion for summary judgment, Huff went beyond mere allegations and tried to\\nprovide proof of each required element—including proof of a breach of duty that creates a\\nstatutory injury—of the cause of action. If he provided evidence checking each of these boxes,\\nthat indeed satisfies the requirements under the statute and indeed satisfies his burden of proof at\\nthis stage of the case when it comes to the elements of the cause of action.\\n\\n But that leaves a different question: Does Congress have authority to label this violation\\nof the statutory duty an Article III injury when it comes to Huff? After Spokeo, we know there is\\nno such thing as an “anything-hurts-so-long-as-Congress-says-it-hurts theory of Article III\\ninjury.” Hagy, 882 F.3d at 622. That requires us to assess whether enforcement of this cause of\\naction, as invoked by Huff and as applied to Huff, exceeds Congress’s power.\\n\\n We see three ways in which Huff potentially could satisfy Article III with this cause of\\naction. One, the statutory violation created an injury in fact as applied to him because it actually\\ninjured him when the violation led, say, to a check decline. Two, the statutory violation did not\\ninjure him in any traditional way, but the risk of injury was so imminent that it satisfies Article\\nIII. Three, the statutory violation did not create an injury in any traditional sense, but Congress\\nhad authority to establish the injury in view of its identification of meaningful risks of harm in\\nthis area. Each possibility deserves its turn.\\n\\n 1. Actual injury as applied to Huff? Huff’s lawsuit does not satisfy the first option. He\\ndoes not allege, much less prove, harm in the flesh-and-blood or dollars-and-cents sense of the\\nterm. By way of examples: He does not claim that TeleCheck’s conduct caused a declined\\ncheck or a denied rental application. He does not suggest that he wasted time or suffered\\nemotional distress while looking for his linked information. He does not contend that he would\\nhave done anything with the missing information had he received it—say, by adjusting his\\nspending habits. All in all, Huff acknowledges that TeleCheck’s incomplete report did not “have\\nany effect on [him] whatsoever.” R. 78-2 at 25.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n 2. Risk of imminent injury as applied to Huff? The second option does not work either.\\nThe record evidence does not show that TeleCheck created a risk that Huff would suffer a check\\ndecline—or any other harm covered by the statute—based on the checking activities of the\\nlinked accounts. Quite the opposite on this record.\\n\\n A material risk of harm, it is true, may establish standing. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549.\\nBut the “threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact.” Clapper v.\\nAmnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (quotation omitted); see Soehlen v. Fleet Owners\\nIns. Fund, 844 F.3d 576, 585 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n\\n The risk that TeleCheck’s incomplete disclosure would cause Huff to suffer a check\\ndecline was highly speculative. Four of the linked accounts (whose precise connection to Huff\\nthe record does not reveal) were last used between 2008 and 2010, making it a virtual certainty\\nthat no one would write a bad check on them today. One of the other linked accounts was Huff’s\\npersonal account, meaning he could not blame TeleCheck’s nondisclosure if he bounced a check\\non it. The remaining account belonged to Huff’s wife. For Huff to suffer a check decline based\\non her account, his wife would have to bounce a check with a TeleCheck merchant, the merchant\\nwould have to report the debt to TeleCheck, Huff’s wife would have to leave the debt\\nunresolved, and Huff would have to try to use a check at a TeleCheck merchant while presenting\\nhis driver’s license. The odds of that happening are remote. The inescapable truth is that Huff\\nhas not suffered a check decline in the five years since he requested his file from TeleCheck.\\n\\n The question, bear in mind, is not whether Huff faces some risk of a check decline in\\ngeneral but what additional risk of harm stems from TeleCheck’s nondisclosure of Huff’s\\ninformation. See Macy v. GC Servs. Ltd., 897 F.3d 747, 758 (6th Cir. 2018) (risk of harm must\\nstem from the procedural violation). That means we have to ask about the difference between\\nwhat Huff would have done with a report containing the linked information and what he did with\\nthe report he received. Huff offers no evidence that, had he received what he wanted, he would\\nhave tried to delink any accounts from his driver’s license. Nor has he done so since acquiring\\nthat information. Full disclosure by TeleCheck, in short, would not have reduced the risk a\\nmerchant would decline Huff’s check.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n Now that Huff has all the information he wants, any remaining risk of a check decline\\nflows from his failure to delink the accounts, not TeleCheck’s failure to disclose them in the first\\ninstance. Because Huff has the power to eliminate any lingering risk of a check decline based on\\na wrongly linked account, his risk of harm does not amount to a concrete injury caused by\\nTeleCheck. See Bassett v. ABM Parking Servs., Inc., 883 F.3d 776, 783 (9th Cir. 2018).\\n\\n Don’t forget one last point. TeleCheck alleviated any risk of harm by including the\\nlinked data disclaimer. The disclaimer warned Huff that his “record is linked to information not\\nincluded in this report” and instructed him to call to get his information. R. 78-6 at 3. Had he\\ndone so, Huff could have learned which accounts TeleCheck linked him to, determined if\\nTeleCheck linked him to any accounts mistakenly, and asked TeleCheck to delete any\\ninappropriate links. Courts assess injuries caused by the deprivation of information based not\\nonly on the information the consumer agency fails to provide but also on the information it does\\nprovide. Dreher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 856 F.3d 337, 346 (4th Cir. 2017). Because\\nTeleCheck enabled, indeed encouraged, Huff to access all the information he sought, its failure\\nto disclose the information created only a negligible risk that Huff would suffer a check decline.\\n\\n 3. Statutory violation as intangible injury in fact? In the absence of a tangible injury or\\nmaterial risk of harm, Huff offers a different theory of injury: a statutory violation that created a\\nprocedural or intangible injury. TeleCheck’s failure to provide him with his linked accounts and\\nthe two missing transactions, he says, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Act creates a\\nduty—that a consumer agency must disclose “[a]ll information in the consumer’s file” upon\\nrequest—and consequences for breaching that duty. 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1). And Huff has\\nprovided evidence of a breach of that duty. That’s all it takes, as Huff sees it, to create a\\ncognizable Article III injury.\\n\\n Huff is right and wrong.\\n\\n Huff is right that intangible injuries premised on statutory violations in some instances\\nmay satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549. Historical\\npractice and the judgment of Congress help to determine whether an intangible injury provides\\nArticle III standing. Id. Congress’s judgment is “instructive and important,” id., and it has some\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nauthority “to define injuries and articulate chains of causation,” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 580\\n(Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). When Congress confers a\\nprocedural right to protect a plaintiff’s concrete interests, a violation of that right may establish\\nthe requisite injury in fact. See Macy, 897 F.3d at 756.\\n\\n Huff is wrong that Congress’s authority to create Article III injuries has no boundaries,\\nsave limits to congressional imagination or congressional self-restraint. Separation-of-powers\\nconsiderations preserve an outer limit on Congress’s authority. “Article III standing requires a\\nconcrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549; see\\nLyshe v. Levy, 854 F.3d 855, 858 (6th Cir. 2017); Wall v. Mich. Rental, 852 F.3d 492, 495 (6th\\nCir. 2017). If a claimant has not suffered a genuine harm or risk of harm, a federal court has no\\nbusiness entertaining his lawsuit. Congress cannot conjure standing by declaring something\\nharmful that is not, by saying anything causes injury because the legislature says it causes injury.\\nHagy, 882 F.3d at 622. A difference remains between injury in law and injury in fact.\\nOtherwise Congress (or a state legislature) could create injuries in law that require the federal\\ncourts to issue advisory opinions.\\n\\n As is sometimes the case with tricky legal problems, the border between what Congress\\nmay do in creating cognizable intangible injuries and what it may not do remains elusive. The\\nMaginot Line comes to mind as a metaphor for our efforts. But that’s only because the federal\\ncourts have frequently allowed Congress to create intangible injuries in the first place, often for\\nlegitimate reasons. Still, the federal courts must preserve a line, some line. Else Congress\\nbecomes the author of the limitations on its own power, a problem of greater magnitude.\\nCf. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).\\n\\n Huff’s claim falls on the wrong side of this line. A few cases help to explain why, each\\ninvolving a statutory violation—and statutory injury—that did not necessarily result in standing.\\nStart with Spokeo v. Robins. 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). In that case, the Supreme Court noted that\\nCongress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act to curb the dissemination of false information.\\nId. at 1550. But it recognized that a violation of the law that results in the dissemination of an\\nobjectively false report does not necessarily cause a concrete harm if the disclosure has no\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nconsequences for the consumer. Id. “[A] bare procedural violation,” such as the dissemination\\nof an incorrect zip code, would not work a concrete harm for purposes of Article III. Id.\\n\\n Hagy v. Demers & Adams respected that principle and elaborated on how it works.\\n882 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2018). A creditor sent a letter to the lawyer of two debtors and allegedly\\nviolated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to disclose that it came from a debt\\ncollector. Id. at 619. Even if that action violated the Act, we held, the debtors lacked standing\\nbecause they could not point to any negative consequences, whether immediately or imminently,\\ncaused by the violation. Id. at 622.\\n\\n The Fourth Circuit looked at the problem the same way in a case arising under the Fair\\nCredit Reporting Act, the same law at issue here. Dreher, 856 F.3d at 340. A consumer\\nrequested and received his file from a credit agency under § 1681g. Id. The report did not name\\nthe correct source of information about one of his debts, as required by the Act, listing the name\\nof the debt’s original (but not current) owner. Id. at 341. But the contact information in the\\nreport connected the consumer to the right creditor all the same. Id. Because the procedurally\\ninadequate report did not “adversely affect[] [the consumer’s] conduct in any way,” the court\\nfound that the statutory violation did not harm the consumer’s interests under the Act. Id. at 347.\\n\\n All three cases lead to the same destination. TeleCheck’s alleged statutory violation did\\nnot harm Huff’s interests under the Fair Credit Reporting Act because it had no adverse\\nconsequences. In TeleCheck’s system, linked accounts play a role only when one of the\\naccounts lists an active debt. None of the six accounts linked to Huff’s driver’s license has ever\\nbeen associated with an outstanding debt. That means the “linked data never affected, altered, or\\ninfluenced a single consumer report on [Huff].” R. 81 at 4. By omitting the linked accounts and\\nthe missing transactions, TeleCheck at most prevented Huff from delinking those accounts from\\nhis driver’s license. But because the undisclosed information was irrelevant to any credit\\nassessment about Huff, delinking the accounts would not have had any effect.\\n\\n Behind all of this stands an important principle. Although Congress wields broad\\nauthority to define injuries, it does not have a blank check. Hagy, 882 F.3d at 623. Any other\\nconclusion would give Congress the final say over the injury-in-fact limitations in Article III, an\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\noutcome inconsistent with the architecture of the Constitution. The Framers feared an\\noverweening Congress, “every where extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power\\ninto its impetuous vortex.” The Federalist No. 48, at 241 (James Madison) (Terence Ball ed.,\\n2003). To fend off that possibility, they erected structural safeguards throughout the National\\nCharter. The horizontal separation of powers prevents Congress from flattening Article III’s\\nlimitations by defining harmless procedural violations—or for that matter anything at all—as\\ninjuries in fact. See Hagy, 882 F.3d at 623.\\n\\n All of this still leaves Congress with plenty of power to define and create intangible\\ninjuries. It just has to explain itself in a way it never did here. In the absence of an explanation\\nof how a seemingly harmless procedural violation constitutes a real injury, we are left with a\\ncanyon-sized gap between Congress’s authority and the problem it seeks to resolve.\\n\\n Two analogies come to mind.\\n\\n One comes from United States v. Lopez. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The Supreme Court\\ninvalidated a federal law banning firearms within a certain distance of any school on the ground\\nthat it exceeded Congress’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.” U.S.\\nConst. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; Lopez, 514 U.S. at 567. Among other explanations for its decision, the\\nCourt noted the lack of congressional findings explaining how the law regulated interstate\\ncommerce. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 562–63. Congress amended the statute to include such findings,\\nsee Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, § 320904,\\n108 Stat. 1796, 2125–26 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)); Lopez, 514 U.S. at 563\\nn.4, and to include an interstate-jurisdictional prerequisite for a prosecution, see Omnibus\\nConsolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 657, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-369–\\n71 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)). Since then, courts have upheld the amended\\nstatute. See, e.g., United States v. Dorsey, 418 F.3d 1038, 1046 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v.\\nDanks, 221 F.3d 1037, 1039 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).\\n\\n The other comes from City of Boerne v. Flores. 521 U.S. 507 (1997). The Court\\ninvalidated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as applied to the States because it exceeded\\nCongress’s enforcement power under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 536.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nAmong other explanations for its decision, the Court noted that Congress failed to provide a\\nlegislative record documenting any pattern of religious liberty violations that would justify\\nextending the Act’s protections beyond the Court’s decisions interpreting the Free Exercise\\nClause. Id. at 530–33. After the decision, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and\\nInstitutionalized Persons Act, which cut back on the scope of the law and supplied the necessary\\nrecord to support the new law. See 146 Cong. Rec. 16,698–700 (2000); H.R. Rep. No. 106-219,\\nat 18–24 (1999). Subsequent challenges to the new law have been rejected. See, e.g., Guru\\nNanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 993 (9th Cir. 2006); cf. Cutter v.\\nWilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 714 (2005).\\n\\n Congressional findings are neither necessary nor sufficient in every case. Congress is not\\nan administrative agency, bound to record the reasoning behind the statutes it enacts. See Turner\\nBroad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994) (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Nor will findings\\ninvariably salvage laws at the edge of congressional power. See United States v. Morrison,\\n529 U.S. 598, 614 (2000). But in the borderlands of congressional power to define intangible\\ninjuries that satisfy Article III, a vexing area under any circumstance, guidance about the ills a\\nstatute is meant to remedy can instruct and guide.\\n\\n Congress has not provided any such guidance here. Had it explained why the type of\\nincomplete disclosure Huff received constitutes an injury in fact, our analysis might well have\\nbeen different. But because Congress has not attempted to show how technical violations of the\\nFair Credit Reporting Act that carry no actual consequences or real risk of harm are concrete\\ninjuries, we must find that Huff has not been injured in this case.\\n\\n Huff tries to counter this conclusion on two grounds. Neither one is convincing.\\n\\n Huff insists that TeleCheck’s failure to disclose this information injured his concrete\\ninterests under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by “robb[ing] [him] of his right to monitor his file,”\\nwhich prevented him from disputing the accuracy of the links. Appellant’s Br. 33. Regardless\\nof whether he presented his driver’s license alongside checks from the six missing accounts, he\\nexplains, his license should not be linked to some of the accounts because they don’t belong to\\nhim, and he had no way of delinking them without knowing about them.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n Assume for now that TeleCheck wrongly linked Huff’s accounts. The linked information\\nnonetheless never made a difference in any credit determination, meaning its continued existence\\nin TeleCheck’s system did not harm Huff’s concrete economic interests. See Owner-Operator\\nIndep. Drivers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 879 F.3d 339, 345 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Confirming\\nthe point, Huff never took any action after receiving the undisclosed information, indicating he\\nwouldn’t have done anything even if he had received it earlier.\\n\\n Public Citizen v. U.S. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989), and FEC v. Akins,\\n524 U.S. 11 (1998), do not alter this conclusion. In those cases, the Court held that a deprivation\\nof information sufficed to provide standing because the plaintiffs would have used the\\ninformation to participate in the political process. See Akins, 524 U.S. at 21; Pub. Citizen, 491\\nU.S. at 449. Here, in contrast, TeleCheck’s incomplete report had no effect on Huff or his future\\nconduct. See Dreher, 856 F.3d at 346–47. The Act never attempts to show how a technical\\nimpairment of a consumer’s ability to monitor a credit report—that carries no actual\\nconsequences for the consumer—rises to the level of an Article III injury, even an Article III\\nintangible injury. See id. at 347. That leaves us with a “bare procedural violation,” attenuated\\nfrom any real harm or imminent risk of harm, that Congress cannot convert into Article III\\nstanding. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549; Hagy, 882 F.3d at 622.\\n\\n Huff argues that Macy v. GC Services Ltd. shows that the risk of a check decline created\\nby TeleCheck’s nondisclosure establishes standing. 897 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2018). Macy, to\\nstart, involved a different law: the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.\\nTwo debtors received a letter from a debt collector notifying them that their credit card accounts\\nhad been referred to the company for collection. Macy, 897 F.3d at 751. The letter informed the\\ndebtors that they could dispute their debt within 30 days, but it failed to say the dispute had to be\\n“in writing.” Id. That violated § 1692g(a), and the debtors sued. We found the debtors had\\nstanding because the debt collector’s failure to include the words “in writing” created a material\\nrisk the debtors might forfeit other protections for their concrete economic interests. Id. at 758.\\n\\n The Macy statute made a risk of harm far more likely than this law does. In enacting the\\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act, Congress sought to curb abusive debt collection activities.\\nId. at 756; see 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). In finding that the nondisclosure of the “in writing”\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nrequirement posed a material risk of harm, we observed that a written dispute triggered other\\nstatutory protections, such as forcing the debt collector to verify the debt and blocking the\\ncollector from collecting the debt until completing the verification. Macy, 897 F.3d at 758; see\\n15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). An oral dispute would forfeit those protections. Macy, 897 F.3d at 758.\\nBecause Congress tied the writing requirement to statutory protections of concrete economic\\ninterests, the failure to include the words “in writing” created a material risk of harm.\\n\\n The Fair Credit Reporting Act does not contain such interlocking statutory protections.\\nWhile it allows consumers to look into and correct information in their files, it does not provide a\\nshield from imminent economic harm in the way the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does.\\nThe Fair Credit Reporting Act’s main target is the dissemination of inaccurate and harmful\\ninformation, just as in Spokeo. See 136 S. Ct. at 1550. Because TeleCheck’s nondisclosure\\nnever harmed Huff, and because it did not create a material risk that Huff would suffer a check\\ndecline, Huff has not suffered an injury in fact.\\n\\n The difference between Macy and this case comes down to a difference in how Congress\\nexercised its power. In Macy, Congress did not trespass on Article III because the statutory\\nviolation was closely connected to real economic harm and thus amounted to an injury in fact. In\\nthis instance, Congress crossed the line. It has not shown how a deprivation of information that\\nneither holds consequences for the consumer nor imposes a real risk of harm creates an injury.\\nIn the absence of that showing, we have only Congress’s say-so, and that does not suffice—at\\nleast so long as the federal courts preserve the Constitution’s structural boundaries.\\n\\n The dissent claims that we have “declare[d] the Fair Credit Reporting Act\\nunconstitutional as exceeding Congress’s power to provide a judicial remedy for statutory\\nviolations.” Infra, at 15. That overstates. Just as no one can obtain an advisory opinion about\\nthe meaning of this law or any other, no one can enforce this law or any other without a concrete\\nArticle III injury in fact. And even in this case, our decision does not mean that TeleCheck’s\\nalleged violations must escape scrutiny. Regardless of Huff’s standing, the Federal Trade\\nCommission and other agencies have both the authority to enforce compliance with the Act and a\\nsovereign interest in doing so. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n That leaves a perspective that has not been raised in today’s case but may deserve\\nconsideration in a future case. As Justice Thomas has pointed out, Article III standing may draw\\na line between private and public rights. With respect to statutes creating private rights—that\\ncreate duties owed to the plaintiffs as individuals—a bare statutory violation may suffice to\\nestablish standing. But with respect to statutes creating public rights—that create duties owed to\\nthe community as a whole—a bare statutory violation may not suffice, and the plaintiff must\\nshow some individual harm beyond the violation. See Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1551–53 (Thomas,\\nJ., concurring); see also Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1046–47 (2019) (Thomas, J.,\\ndissenting). The theory deserves further consideration at some point. It seems to respect history\\nand cuts a path in otherwise forbidding terrain. See William Baude, Standing in the Shadow of\\nCongress, 2016 Sup. Ct. Rev. 197, 227–31; Ann Woolhandler & Caleb Nelson, Does History\\nDefeat Standing Doctrine?, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 689, 693–712 (2004). But the theory also raises\\nquestions of its own in an age of statutes. Whatever is true of Congress’s power to create\\nstanding by statute would seem to hold for state legislatures as well, posing another threat to\\nArticle III’s limits. And even if the dichotomy between public and private rights honors original\\nmeaning, what of laws that use nominally private rights as a way of commissioning private\\nattorneys general to enforce public regulatory schemes—a modern reality without obvious\\neighteenth-century heirs? What amounts to a public right and what amounts to a private right\\nmay not be easy to transpose today. Either way, clarification from Congress about whether a\\nright was meant to protect personal or public interests would ease the judicial task. For now,\\nunder Spokeo and our own decisions, Huff has failed to establish injury in fact.\\n\\n We affirm.\\n\\n No. 18-5438 Huff v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n DISSENT\\n _________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2072,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4617670,"string":"4,617,670"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wesley A. MUCHOW, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Wesley Muchow"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3738"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Cole, Stranch, Readler\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0087p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-3738\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n WESLEY A. MUCHOW, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\\n No. 1:17-cr-00432-1—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 8, 2019\\n\\n Before: COLE, Chief Judge; STRANCH and READLER, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Christian J. Grostic, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Cleveland, Ohio, for\\nAppellant. Michael A. Sullivan, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio,\\nfor Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Defendant Wesley Muchow pled guilty to one\\ncount of receiving and distributing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit\\nconduct. After weighing the parties’ respective arguments at the sentencing hearing, the district\\ncourt sentenced Muchow at the very bottom of the proposed United States Sentencing Guidelines\\nrange. We reject Muchow’s position that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and\\nAFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\\n\\f No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 2\\n\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n In many respects, Wesley Muchow lived a life one could be proud of, and certainly not\\none that would catch the eye of federal prosecutors. He graduated from high school, was\\ngainfully employed as a machine operator, and made a home in Bucyrus, a north central Ohio\\ncommunity located along the historic Lincoln Highway. Muchow had a close bond with his\\nfamily, relying on their support during challenging times. And until this federal prosecution, his\\nknown criminal record reflected only a decades-old state-law misdemeanor for driving under the\\ninfluence.\\n\\n Unfortunately, Muchow’s life had a dark chapter, one revealed in 2017 when FBI agents\\nexecuted a search warrant at his home. There, agents discovered 3,616 images of minors\\nengaged in sexually explicit conduct, all stored on electronic devices, as well as 61 videos\\nreflecting similarly explicit conduct.\\n\\n Muchow’s misconduct was not an isolated incident. The volume of child pornography\\ndiscovered in his home alone suggested as much. So too did the FBI’s investigation. The search\\nwarrant was based upon findings from the prior November and December, when an undercover\\nFBI agent used peer-to-peer file sharing programs to download remotely child pornography—\\nboth pictures and videos—from Muchow’s computer. The search revealed over 30 files of child\\npornography. Muchow would later admit to “searching and downloading” child pornography for\\nat least “the past ten years.”\\n\\n In the months that followed the search, Muchow sought to reform his ways. As a first\\nstep, Muchow provided a signed statement to law enforcement officers admitting he had viewed\\nchild pornography. Later, he attended counseling sessions to seek treatment for his addiction.\\nOn top of that, he engaged in church, family, and work activities, and refrained from viewing\\nillegal pornographic images.\\n\\n Muchow was indicted in October 2017 on one count of receiving and distributing\\ndepictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2),\\nand one count of possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), including at least\\n\\f No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 3\\n\\n\\none image of a prepubescent minor or a minor under the age of 12. Ultimately, Muchow pled\\nguilty to Count 1, and the government dismissed Count 2.\\n\\n The case moved ahead to sentencing. Neither party objected to the Presentence Report.\\nThe Guidelines range for Muchow’s offense was calculated as 135 to 168 months in prison.\\nMuchow argued for a 60-month sentence, the mandatory minimum. He based his request on his\\nlack of criminal history, his educational and work history, and his cooperation with law\\nenforcement. The government, on the other hand, argued for a sentence within the Guidelines\\nrange. Ultimately, the district court sentenced Muchow to 135 months, the very bottom end of\\nthe Guidelines range, with an additional five years of supervised release.\\n\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n\\n Challenging the determination below, Muchow contends that the sentence imposed was\\nsubstantively unreasonable. In reviewing that sentence, we begin with the general rule\\narticulated across our cases: Where a district court acted reasonably in imposing a sentence, this\\nCourt must affirm its decision. See, e.g., United States v. Heriot, 496 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir.\\n2007) (Norris, J.).\\n\\n Whether a sentence is substantively unreasonable is “a matter of reasoned discretion, not\\nmath[.]” United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018). In assessing the issue, our\\nCourt, granting appropriate discretion to the district court, examines whether the district court\\nselected the sentence in an arbitrary manner, considered impermissible factors, or assigned\\nunreasonable weight to a permissible factor. See generally Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,\\n56–57 (2007) (asking whether the district court, in sentencing a defendant, abused its discretion\\nin weighing the § 3553(a) factors or by giving significant weight to an improper factor).\\n\\n While not dispositive, it bears repeating that the district court sentenced Muchow within\\nthe Guidelines range. In this Circuit, Guidelines-range sentences are generally presumed to be\\nreasonable. See United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Here,\\nMuchow’s sentence was at the very bottom of the range—in essence, the most favorable\\nGuidelines sentence he could have received.\\n\\f No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 4\\n\\n\\n We see no reason to second-guess the district court’s sentencing decision. The collection\\nof child pornography recovered from Muchow’s residence was extensive and disturbing. In\\naddition to 129 images, it included four videos, each several minutes in length, showing adult\\nmales raping prepubescent children. One video involved the use of a dog in sexual acts with\\nchildren—another the sexual bondage of a nine-year-old. Serving over a decade in prison is no\\nsmall matter, to be sure. “But it is [] Congress’s prerogative to dictate sentencing enhancements\\nbased on a retributive judgment that certain crimes are reprehensible and warrant serious\\npunishment as a result.” United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758, 764 (6th Cir. 2012). For these\\nreasons, we cannot say that a 135-month sentence—one at the very bottom of the Guidelines\\nrange—was inappropriate here.\\n\\n Muchow contests two grounds invoked by government counsel to justify his sentence.\\nFraming the government as arguing that Muchow “commit[ed] more crimes than his criminal\\nhistory reflected,” and then “minimize[d] his offenses,” Muchow contends that the district court\\nerred in relying on these “unfounded assumptions and speculation in its sentence.”\\n\\n Here again, we afford the sentencing court significant latitude. We grant a district court\\nwide discretion in choosing what information it will consider at sentencing. That information\\noften includes considerations like the background, character, and conduct of the defendant. See\\nUnited States v. Kennedy, 499 F.3d 547, 552 (6th Cir. 2007) (Cook, J.). And the record here\\nindicates the district court properly considered the information before it in imposing the\\nsentence. With respect to prior instances of wrongdoing, Muchow himself acknowledged that he\\nhad viewed child pornography for at least a decade, if not longer. That admission alone is\\nenough to support the district court’s finding that Muchow viewed child pornography on “more\\nthan just the dates that are included in the indictment.” It was thus neither arbitrary nor\\nspeculative for the district court to consider the “extent and time frame this [conduct] went on” in\\nsentencing Muchow.\\n\\n To the same end, government counsel, in response to Muchow’s argument regarding his\\nlevel of cooperation, was within her right to note that, while Muchow was forthcoming in many\\nrespects, he did not make complete disclosures regarding his offenses. In any event, the district\\ncourt did not credit the government’s argument. Rather, the district court ultimately agreed with\\n\\f No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 5\\n\\n\\nMuchow on the point, crediting his level of cooperation and efforts at rehabilitation: “I’m giving\\nyou the lower end, of course, because I see substantial progress by you, as pointed out by [your\\ncounsel].”\\n\\n Finally, Muchow cites as a judicial vice conduct by the district court one would typically\\nconsider a virtue, namely, assessing each side’s argument in turn as it considered the sentence to\\nimpose. At the sentencing hearing, both Muchow’s counsel and the government’s counsel\\npersuasively argued on behalf of their respective clients. Noting the force of those arguments,\\nthe district court articulated the challenge before it: “Here’s what goes through my mind, Mr.\\nMuchow: When I hear Mr. Ivey [counsel for Muchow], the sentence goes down. Then I listen\\nto Miss Angleli [counsel for the government], and the sentence goes back up.” Muchow finds\\nerror in the “sentence [going] back up,” in response to the government’s arguments.\\n\\n As already explained, we see no error in the district court’s sentencing decision. The\\ndistrict court examined both parties’ evidence and legal argument as it considered what sentence\\nto impose. That is what one would expect a sentencing court to do. Appellate courts in\\nparticular rely on the district court to do so, as that court is “in a superior position to find facts\\nand judge their import under § 3553(a)[.]” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. District courts have “access to,\\nand greater familiarity with, the individual case and the individual defendant[.]” Id. (internal\\nquotation marks and citation omitted). They should avail themselves of that information, as the\\ndistrict court did in setting Muchow’s sentence. That judgment, if reasonable, ordinarily should\\nbe respected by a reviewing court. We do so here.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4394923/\", \"author_raw\": \"CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"COLE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"STRANCH"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"READLER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617670/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wesley A. MUCHOW, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0087p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n > No. 18-3738\n v. │\n │\n │\n WESLEY A. MUCHOW, │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\n No. 1:17-cr-00432-1—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: May 8, 2019\n\n Before: COLE, Chief Judge; STRANCH and READLER, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: Christian J. Grostic, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Cleveland, Ohio, for\nAppellant. Michael A. Sullivan, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio,\nfor Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Defendant Wesley Muchow pled guilty to one\ncount of receiving and distributing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit\nconduct. After weighing the parties’ respective arguments at the sentencing hearing, the district\ncourt sentenced Muchow at the very bottom of the proposed United States Sentencing Guidelines\nrange. We reject Muchow’s position that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and\nAFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\n\f No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 2\n\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n In many respects, Wesley Muchow lived a life one could be proud of, and certainly not\none that would catch the eye of federal prosecutors. He graduated from high school, was\ngainfully employed as a machine operator, and made a home in Bucyrus, a north central Ohio\ncommunity located along the historic Lincoln Highway. Muchow had a close bond with his\nfamily, relying on their support during challenging times. And until this federal prosecution, his\nknown criminal record reflected only a decades-old state-law misdemeanor for driving under the\ninfluence.\n\n Unfortunately, Muchow’s life had a dark chapter, one revealed in 2017 when FBI agents\nexecuted a search warrant at his home. There, agents discovered 3,616 images of minors\nengaged in sexually explicit conduct, all stored on electronic devices, as well as 61 videos\nreflecting similarly explicit conduct.\n\n Muchow’s misconduct was not an isolated incident. The volume of child pornography\ndiscovered in his home alone suggested as much. So too did the FBI’s investigation. The search\nwarrant was based upon findings from the prior November and December, when an undercover\nFBI agent used peer-to-peer file sharing programs to download remotely child pornography—\nboth pictures and videos—from Muchow’s computer. The search revealed over 30 files of child\npornography. Muchow would later admit to “searching and downloading” child pornography for\nat least “the past ten years.”\n\n In the months that followed the search, Muchow sought to reform his ways. As a first\nstep, Muchow provided a signed statement to law enforcement officers admitting he had viewed\nchild pornography. Later, he attended counseling sessions to seek treatment for his addiction.\nOn top of that, he engaged in church, family, and work activities, and refrained from viewing\nillegal pornographic images.\n\n Muchow was indicted in October 2017 on one count of receiving and distributing\ndepictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2),\nand one count of possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), including at least\n\f No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 3\n\n\none image of a prepubescent minor or a minor under the age of 12. Ultimately, Muchow pled\nguilty to Count 1, and the government dismissed Count 2.\n\n The case moved ahead to sentencing. Neither party objected to the Presentence Report.\nThe Guidelines range for Muchow’s offense was calculated as 135 to 168 months in prison.\nMuchow argued for a 60-month sentence, the mandatory minimum. He based his request on his\nlack of criminal history, his educational and work history, and his cooperation with law\nenforcement. The government, on the other hand, argued for a sentence within the Guidelines\nrange. Ultimately, the district court sentenced Muchow to 135 months, the very bottom end of\nthe Guidelines range, with an additional five years of supervised release.\n\n II. ANALYSIS\n\n Challenging the determination below, Muchow contends that the sentence imposed was\nsubstantively unreasonable. In reviewing that sentence, we begin with the general rule\narticulated across our cases: Where a district court acted reasonably in imposing a sentence, this\nCourt must affirm its decision. See, e.g., United States v. Heriot, 496 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir.\n2007) (Norris, J.).\n\n Whether a sentence is substantively unreasonable is “a matter of reasoned discretion, not\nmath[.]” United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018). In assessing the issue, our\nCourt, granting appropriate discretion to the district court, examines whether the district court\nselected the sentence in an arbitrary manner, considered impermissible factors, or assigned\nunreasonable weight to a permissible factor. See generally Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,\n56–57 (2007) (asking whether the district court, in sentencing a defendant, abused its discretion\nin weighing the § 3553(a) factors or by giving significant weight to an improper factor).\n\n While not dispositive, it bears repeating that the district court sentenced Muchow within\nthe Guidelines range. In this Circuit, Guidelines-range sentences are generally presumed to be\nreasonable. See United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Here,\nMuchow’s sentence was at the very bottom of the range—in essence, the most favorable\nGuidelines sentence he could have received.\n\f No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 4\n\n\n We see no reason to second-guess the district court’s sentencing decision. The collection\nof child pornography recovered from Muchow’s residence was extensive and disturbing. In\naddition to 129 images, it included four videos, each several minutes in length, showing adult\nmales raping prepubescent children. One video involved the use of a dog in sexual acts with\nchildren—another the sexual bondage of a nine-year-old. Serving over a decade in prison is no\nsmall matter, to be sure. “But it is [] Congress’s prerogative to dictate sentencing enhancements\nbased on a retributive judgment that certain crimes are reprehensible and warrant serious\npunishment as a result.” United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758, 764 (6th Cir. 2012). For these\nreasons, we cannot say that a 135-month sentence—one at the very bottom of the Guidelines\nrange—was inappropriate here.\n\n Muchow contests two grounds invoked by government counsel to justify his sentence.\nFraming the government as arguing that Muchow “commit[ed] more crimes than his criminal\nhistory reflected,” and then “minimize[d] his offenses,” Muchow contends that the district court\nerred in relying on these “unfounded assumptions and speculation in its sentence.”\n\n Here again, we afford the sentencing court significant latitude. We grant a district court\nwide discretion in choosing what information it will consider at sentencing. That information\noften includes considerations like the background, character, and conduct of the defendant. See\nUnited States v. Kennedy, 499 F.3d 547, 552 (6th Cir. 2007) (Cook, J.). And the record here\nindicates the district court properly considered the information before it in imposing the\nsentence. With respect to prior instances of wrongdoing, Muchow himself acknowledged that he\nhad viewed child pornography for at least a decade, if not longer. That admission alone is\nenough to support the district court’s finding that Muchow viewed child pornography on “more\nthan just the dates that are included in the indictment.” It was thus neither arbitrary nor\nspeculative for the district court to consider the “extent and time frame this [conduct] went on” in\nsentencing Muchow.\n\n To the same end, government counsel, in response to Muchow’s argument regarding his\nlevel of cooperation, was within her right to note that, while Muchow was forthcoming in many\nrespects, he did not make complete disclosures regarding his offenses. In any event, the district\ncourt did not credit the government’s argument. Rather, the district court ultimately agreed with\n\f No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 5\n\n\nMuchow on the point, crediting his level of cooperation and efforts at rehabilitation: “I’m giving\nyou the lower end, of course, because I see substantial progress by you, as pointed out by [your\ncounsel].”\n\n Finally, Muchow cites as a judicial vice conduct by the district court one would typically\nconsider a virtue, namely, assessing each side’s argument in turn as it considered the sentence to\nimpose. At the sentencing hearing, both Muchow’s counsel and the government’s counsel\npersuasively argued on behalf of their respective clients. Noting the force of those arguments,\nthe district court articulated the challenge before it: “Here’s what goes through my mind, Mr.\nMuchow: When I hear Mr. Ivey [counsel for Muchow], the sentence goes down. Then I listen\nto Miss Angleli [counsel for the government], and the sentence goes back up.” Muchow finds\nerror in the “sentence [going] back up,” in response to the government’s arguments.\n\n As already explained, we see no error in the district court’s sentencing decision. The\ndistrict court examined both parties’ evidence and legal argument as it considered what sentence\nto impose. That is what one would expect a sentencing court to do. Appellate courts in\nparticular rely on the district court to do so, as that court is “in a superior position to find facts\nand judge their import under § 3553(a)[.]” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. District courts have “access to,\nand greater familiarity with, the individual case and the individual defendant[.]” Id. (internal\nquotation marks and citation omitted). They should avail themselves of that information, as the\ndistrict court did in setting Muchow’s sentence. That judgment, if reasonable, ordinarily should\nbe respected by a reviewing court. We do so here.\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wesley A. MUCHOW, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0087p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-3738\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n WESLEY A. MUCHOW, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\\n No. 1:17-cr-00432-1—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 8, 2019\\n\\n Before: COLE, Chief Judge; STRANCH and READLER, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Christian J. Grostic, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Cleveland, Ohio, for\\nAppellant. Michael A. Sullivan, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio,\\nfor Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Defendant Wesley Muchow pled guilty to one\\ncount of receiving and distributing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit\\nconduct. After weighing the parties’ respective arguments at the sentencing hearing, the district\\ncourt sentenced Muchow at the very bottom of the proposed United States Sentencing Guidelines\\nrange. We reject Muchow’s position that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and\\nAFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\\n\\f No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 2\\n\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n In many respects, Wesley Muchow lived a life one could be proud of, and certainly not\\none that would catch the eye of federal prosecutors. He graduated from high school, was\\ngainfully employed as a machine operator, and made a home in Bucyrus, a north central Ohio\\ncommunity located along the historic Lincoln Highway. Muchow had a close bond with his\\nfamily, relying on their support during challenging times. And until this federal prosecution, his\\nknown criminal record reflected only a decades-old state-law misdemeanor for driving under the\\ninfluence.\\n\\n Unfortunately, Muchow’s life had a dark chapter, one revealed in 2017 when FBI agents\\nexecuted a search warrant at his home. There, agents discovered 3,616 images of minors\\nengaged in sexually explicit conduct, all stored on electronic devices, as well as 61 videos\\nreflecting similarly explicit conduct.\\n\\n Muchow’s misconduct was not an isolated incident. The volume of child pornography\\ndiscovered in his home alone suggested as much. So too did the FBI’s investigation. The search\\nwarrant was based upon findings from the prior November and December, when an undercover\\nFBI agent used peer-to-peer file sharing programs to download remotely child pornography—\\nboth pictures and videos—from Muchow’s computer. The search revealed over 30 files of child\\npornography. Muchow would later admit to “searching and downloading” child pornography for\\nat least “the past ten years.”\\n\\n In the months that followed the search, Muchow sought to reform his ways. As a first\\nstep, Muchow provided a signed statement to law enforcement officers admitting he had viewed\\nchild pornography. Later, he attended counseling sessions to seek treatment for his addiction.\\nOn top of that, he engaged in church, family, and work activities, and refrained from viewing\\nillegal pornographic images.\\n\\n Muchow was indicted in October 2017 on one count of receiving and distributing\\ndepictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2),\\nand one count of possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), including at least\\n\\f No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 3\\n\\n\\none image of a prepubescent minor or a minor under the age of 12. Ultimately, Muchow pled\\nguilty to Count 1, and the government dismissed Count 2.\\n\\n The case moved ahead to sentencing. Neither party objected to the Presentence Report.\\nThe Guidelines range for Muchow’s offense was calculated as 135 to 168 months in prison.\\nMuchow argued for a 60-month sentence, the mandatory minimum. He based his request on his\\nlack of criminal history, his educational and work history, and his cooperation with law\\nenforcement. The government, on the other hand, argued for a sentence within the Guidelines\\nrange. Ultimately, the district court sentenced Muchow to 135 months, the very bottom end of\\nthe Guidelines range, with an additional five years of supervised release.\\n\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n\\n Challenging the determination below, Muchow contends that the sentence imposed was\\nsubstantively unreasonable. In reviewing that sentence, we begin with the general rule\\narticulated across our cases: Where a district court acted reasonably in imposing a sentence, this\\nCourt must affirm its decision. See, e.g., United States v. Heriot, 496 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir.\\n2007) (Norris, J.).\\n\\n Whether a sentence is substantively unreasonable is “a matter of reasoned discretion, not\\nmath[.]” United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018). In assessing the issue, our\\nCourt, granting appropriate discretion to the district court, examines whether the district court\\nselected the sentence in an arbitrary manner, considered impermissible factors, or assigned\\nunreasonable weight to a permissible factor. See generally Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,\\n56–57 (2007) (asking whether the district court, in sentencing a defendant, abused its discretion\\nin weighing the § 3553(a) factors or by giving significant weight to an improper factor).\\n\\n While not dispositive, it bears repeating that the district court sentenced Muchow within\\nthe Guidelines range. In this Circuit, Guidelines-range sentences are generally presumed to be\\nreasonable. See United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Here,\\nMuchow’s sentence was at the very bottom of the range—in essence, the most favorable\\nGuidelines sentence he could have received.\\n\\f No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 4\\n\\n\\n We see no reason to second-guess the district court’s sentencing decision. The collection\\nof child pornography recovered from Muchow’s residence was extensive and disturbing. In\\naddition to 129 images, it included four videos, each several minutes in length, showing adult\\nmales raping prepubescent children. One video involved the use of a dog in sexual acts with\\nchildren—another the sexual bondage of a nine-year-old. Serving over a decade in prison is no\\nsmall matter, to be sure. “But it is [] Congress’s prerogative to dictate sentencing enhancements\\nbased on a retributive judgment that certain crimes are reprehensible and warrant serious\\npunishment as a result.” United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758, 764 (6th Cir. 2012). For these\\nreasons, we cannot say that a 135-month sentence—one at the very bottom of the Guidelines\\nrange—was inappropriate here.\\n\\n Muchow contests two grounds invoked by government counsel to justify his sentence.\\nFraming the government as arguing that Muchow “commit[ed] more crimes than his criminal\\nhistory reflected,” and then “minimize[d] his offenses,” Muchow contends that the district court\\nerred in relying on these “unfounded assumptions and speculation in its sentence.”\\n\\n Here again, we afford the sentencing court significant latitude. We grant a district court\\nwide discretion in choosing what information it will consider at sentencing. That information\\noften includes considerations like the background, character, and conduct of the defendant. See\\nUnited States v. Kennedy, 499 F.3d 547, 552 (6th Cir. 2007) (Cook, J.). And the record here\\nindicates the district court properly considered the information before it in imposing the\\nsentence. With respect to prior instances of wrongdoing, Muchow himself acknowledged that he\\nhad viewed child pornography for at least a decade, if not longer. That admission alone is\\nenough to support the district court’s finding that Muchow viewed child pornography on “more\\nthan just the dates that are included in the indictment.” It was thus neither arbitrary nor\\nspeculative for the district court to consider the “extent and time frame this [conduct] went on” in\\nsentencing Muchow.\\n\\n To the same end, government counsel, in response to Muchow’s argument regarding his\\nlevel of cooperation, was within her right to note that, while Muchow was forthcoming in many\\nrespects, he did not make complete disclosures regarding his offenses. In any event, the district\\ncourt did not credit the government’s argument. Rather, the district court ultimately agreed with\\n\\f No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 5\\n\\n\\nMuchow on the point, crediting his level of cooperation and efforts at rehabilitation: “I’m giving\\nyou the lower end, of course, because I see substantial progress by you, as pointed out by [your\\ncounsel].”\\n\\n Finally, Muchow cites as a judicial vice conduct by the district court one would typically\\nconsider a virtue, namely, assessing each side’s argument in turn as it considered the sentence to\\nimpose. At the sentencing hearing, both Muchow’s counsel and the government’s counsel\\npersuasively argued on behalf of their respective clients. Noting the force of those arguments,\\nthe district court articulated the challenge before it: “Here’s what goes through my mind, Mr.\\nMuchow: When I hear Mr. Ivey [counsel for Muchow], the sentence goes down. Then I listen\\nto Miss Angleli [counsel for the government], and the sentence goes back up.” Muchow finds\\nerror in the “sentence [going] back up,” in response to the government’s arguments.\\n\\n As already explained, we see no error in the district court’s sentencing decision. The\\ndistrict court examined both parties’ evidence and legal argument as it considered what sentence\\nto impose. That is what one would expect a sentencing court to do. Appellate courts in\\nparticular rely on the district court to do so, as that court is “in a superior position to find facts\\nand judge their import under § 3553(a)[.]” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. District courts have “access to,\\nand greater familiarity with, the individual case and the individual defendant[.]” Id. (internal\\nquotation marks and citation omitted). They should avail themselves of that information, as the\\ndistrict court did in setting Muchow’s sentence. That judgment, if reasonable, ordinarily should\\nbe respected by a reviewing court. We do so here.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2073,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4617675,"string":"4,617,675"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Adrian FOWLER; Kitia Harris, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Jocelyn BENSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in Her Official Capacity, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Adrian Fowler v. Jocelyn Benson"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-2504/18-1089"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: BATCHELDER, DONALD, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0086p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n ADRIAN FOWLER; KITIA HARRIS, on behalf of ┐\\n themselves and others similarly situated, │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, │\\n │\\n > Nos. 17-2504/18-1089\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n JOCELYN BENSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in her │\\n official capacity, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint.\\n No. 4:17-cv-11441—Linda V. Parker, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: October 3, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 8, 2019\\n\\n Before: BATCHELDER, DONALD, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: John G. Fedynsky, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL,\\nLansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Phil Telfeyan, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW,\\nWashington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: John G. Fedynsky, OFFICE OF THE\\nMICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Phil Telfeyan,\\nRebecca Ramaswamy, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW, Washington, D.C., John C. Philo,\\nMAURICE & JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE,\\nDetroit, Michigan, for Appellees.\\n\\n BATCHELDER, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which THAPAR, J., joined.\\nDONALD, J. (pp. 19–30), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. This is a case about the constitutionality of\\nMichigan’s driver’s-license suspension scheme, as applied to indigent drivers. Plaintiffs claim\\nthat the Michigan Secretary of State’s suspension of an indigent person’s driver’s license, on the\\nbasis of unpaid court debt, violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs contend that\\nsuspending the driver’s licenses of the poor is irrational because license suspension makes their\\ncommuting to and from work, for instance, much harder, and therefore reduces the chances that\\nthey will pay the debt. Whatever merit Plaintiffs’ argument might have as a matter of policy, its\\nmerit as a constitutional argument is diminished by the fact that our review of state legislative\\nchoices in this arena is markedly deferential. Because Plaintiffs have not shown that Michigan’s\\nlegal scheme is devoid of a rational basis, we decline Plaintiffs’ invitation to etch their preferred\\ndriver’s-license policy into constitutional bedrock.\\n\\n The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin Michigan’s Secretary of State from\\nenforcing Michigan’s driver’s-license suspension law. Because we find that the Secretary’s\\nenforcement of Michigan law does not run afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment, we REVERSE.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Adrian Fowler and Kitia Harris (“Plaintiffs”) are Michigan residents who claim that their\\ndriver’s licenses were suspended due to their inability to pay court debt.1 Fowler lived in\\nGeorgia between 2008 and 2012, where she acquired three tickets for civil infractions. She has\\nnot paid the court debt associated with those tickets. In 2012, after moving to Michigan, Fowler\\nattempted to renew her Michigan driver’s license, but was unable to do so because she had\\noutstanding court debts in Georgia. In 2013, Fowler was cited for driving with a suspended\\nlicense as well as speeding. Fowler claims that she went to the Ferndale, Michigan, court to\\nexplain that she could not pay the costs associated with her ticket—nearly $600—and was told\\n\\n 1We refer to court debt as a catch-all term for fines, court costs, fees, or assessments identified under\\nMichigan Compiled Laws § 257.321a.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 3\\n\\n\\nthat if she did not return in three weeks with full payment, a warrant would be issued for her\\narrest.\\n\\n Fowler works 20 hours a week making $8.90 per hour. She claims that she lacks the\\nresources to repay her court debts. Fowler claims that she is unable to find good-paying work as\\na result of her suspended license because many desirable jobs require a commute for which there\\nis no reliable public transit.\\n\\n Harris was ticketed in Michigan in 2016 for “impeding traffic.” She claims that the citing\\nofficer told her to call a particular phone number to determine the amount she owed for the\\nticket. Harris called the number (which put her in touch with the Michigan 43rd District Court-\\nFerndale Division) and was told that she owed $150. Because she could not make that payment,\\nHarris claims, she asked if she could be placed on a payment program, but was told that she\\ncould not, and that if she waited too long to pay off the ticket, her driver’s license would be\\nsuspended. Roughly a month after her phone call, Harris received a notice in the mail saying\\nthat her failure to pay the fine resulted in an increase in the amount she owed and that her\\ndriver’s license had been suspended. After this lawsuit was filed, Harris’ license was subject to\\nsuspension on three new grounds unrelated to her failure to pay the court debt stemming from\\nher impeding traffic charge.\\n\\n Michigan’s Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson (“Secretary Benson”),2 disputes Harris’\\naccount of her interaction with the Ferndale court. Secretary Benson claims that when Harris\\ncontacted the court in October 2016, she was given an extension to permit her to make a payment\\nby November 7, 2016, and was informed that a payment by that deadline would give her another\\nextension on the balance and keep her license from being suspended. But because Harris failed\\nto make a payment, the Ferndale court entered default judgment against her on November 14,\\n2016, and her license was suspended. Secretary Benson claims that, had Harris contacted the\\nFerndale court again, the court would have made a payment arrangement with her to avoid the\\nsuspension of her license. In support of this claim, Secretary Benson provided the affidavit of\\n\\n 2Thisappeal was filed when Ruth Johnson held the office of Secretary of State of the State of Michigan.\\nPursuant to FRAP 43(c)(2) Automatic Substitution of Officeholder, the court has substituted her successor, Jocelyn\\nBenson, as a party.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 4\\n\\n\\nLinda Carroll, the Court Administrator for the Ferndale court, who explained that “[a]nyone that\\ncalls in and makes any type of payment will always be granted an extension.” These repayment\\nplans can be started at as little as $1 per payment. Carroll also claims that individuals are\\ninformed that they can raise their inability to pay at a show-cause hearing.\\n\\n According to Harris, having her license suspended has been a burden, and she lacks the\\nresources to pay her court debt. Although she receives disability benefits, she claims that, after\\naccounting for living expenses, caring for her daughter, and paying off her medical debt, she\\nlacks sufficient resources to pay the amount she owes in order to have her suspended license\\nreinstated. Harris claims that, on account of her suspended license, among other consequences,\\nshe struggles to attend her regular medical appointments.\\n\\n Plaintiffs brought a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Secretary\\nBenson for unlawfully suspending their driver’s licenses. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,\\nclaiming that Secretary Benson’s suspension of the driver’s licenses of the indigent who are\\nunable to make payments violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the\\nConstitution. The district court found only one of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims likely to\\nsucceed on the merits—Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim that they were constitutionally\\nentitled to an “ability to pay” hearing prior to the deprivation of their driver’s licenses. The\\ncurrent version of the preliminary injunction order issued by the district court is as follows:\\n\\n Defendant is enjoined from suspending any further driver’s licenses of individuals\\n because of nonpayment of any fine, cost, fee or assessment under Michigan\\n Compiled Laws § 257.321a unless and until Defendant or another entity:\\n (1) offers drivers the option to request a hearing where they have the opportunity\\n to demonstrate their inability to pay a fine, cost, fee and/or assessment;\\n (2) provides a hearing when requested; (3) provides reasonable notice to drivers\\n of the hearing opportunity; and (4) institutes alternatives to full payment for those\\n unable to pay (e.g. realistic payment plans or volunteer service).\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Before reviewing the district court’s preliminary injunction order on the merits, we must\\naddress Secretary Benson’s four challenges to the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 5\\n\\n\\n Standing. We review de novo the district court’s conclusion regarding standing. Friends\\nof Tims Ford v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 585 F.3d 955, 966 (6th Cir. 2009). Secretary Benson\\nchallenges on two distinct grounds Plaintiffs’ standing to bring suit. First, Secretary Benson\\ndisputes Plaintiffs’ factual account of the process the Ferndale court afforded to Plaintiffs. The\\ndistrict court, following Gentek Building Products, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320\\n(6th Cir. 2007), correctly held that Secretary Benson’s factual dispute implicates the merits of\\nPlaintiffs’ claims, and therefore a factual inquiry into the allegations was inappropriate to\\ndetermine standing. Secretary Benson argues that Gentek is inapplicable because it concerned a\\nmotion to dismiss rather than what we have here—a standing challenge to a claim seeking\\ninjunctive relief. This is a distinction without a material difference as Gentek’s holding—“a\\ndistrict court engages in a factual inquiry regarding the complaint’s allegations only when the\\nfacts necessary to sustain jurisdiction do not implicate the merits of the plaintiff’s claim”—\\napplies equally in this situation. 491 F.3d at 330.\\n\\n Second, Secretary Benson argues that Plaintiffs’ claimed injury is not redressible. For\\nArticle III standing, the relief sought by a plaintiff “must provide redress for the injury.”\\nParsons v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 801 F.3d 701, 715 (6th Cir. 2015). The district court\\nrightly found this requirement met by Plaintiffs insofar as “a favorable decision would remedy\\nthe violation of Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights . . . [and] puts Plaintiffs one step closer\\nto regaining their driving privileges.” The district court acknowledged that “other impediments”\\nmay remain for Plaintiffs to regain their driver’s licenses but held that the elimination of one\\nsubstantial obstacle for Plaintiffs to regain their licenses constituted “substantial and meaningful\\nrelief” sufficient to render their claimed injury redressable. The district court’s conclusion was\\njustified under Supreme Court precedent. In Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan\\nHousing Development Corp., the Court held that even if “[a]n injunction would not . . . guarantee\\nthat” a plaintiff will achieve his desired final outcome, the injunction will have provided\\nconstitutionally sufficient redress if it “removed” a “barrier” to doing so. 429 U.S. 252, 261\\n(1977).\\n\\n Rooker-Feldman. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of\\nColumbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), hold that only the Supreme Court\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 6\\n\\n\\nmay review judgments entered by state courts in civil litigation. The doctrine, therefore, bars a\\nlower federal appellate court from reviewing a plaintiff’s claim when a state court’s judgment is\\nthe source of the plaintiff’s injury. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S.\\n280, 283-84 (2005).\\n\\n Secretary Benson argues that Plaintiffs are appealing the adverse judgment of Michigan\\ntrial courts, thereby contravening the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. But the Michigan statute is\\nclear—it is the Secretary who suspends licenses, even if the Secretary does so only after getting\\ncertain information from trial courts. Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.321a(2). As we explained in\\nMcCormick v. Braverman:\\n\\n The inquiry then is the source of the injury the plaintiff alleges in the federal\\n complaint. If the source of the injury is the state court decision, then the Rooker-\\n Feldman doctrine would prevent the district court from asserting jurisdiction.\\n If there is some other source of injury, such as a third-party’s actions, then the\\n plaintiff asserts an independent claim.\\n\\n451 F.3d 382, 393 (6th Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs’ suit seeks review of Secretary Benson’s\\nsuspension of their licenses regardless of the validity of any state court decision. The fact that\\nstate court decisions form part of the basis for the Secretary’s suspension action is immaterial.\\nId. at 394 (“To the extent that Defendants argue that these claims, even though they do not assert\\ninjury from the state court judgments, are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with those judgments so as\\nto fall within the reach of Rooker-Feldman, that argument must fail.”).\\n\\n Pullman and Younger. Secretary Benson argues that the district court should have\\nabstained from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under Railroad Commission of\\nTexas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), and Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).\\nPullman abstention instructs courts to avoid exercising jurisdiction in cases involving an\\nambiguous state statute that may be interpreted by state courts so as to eliminate, or at least alter\\nmaterially, the constitutional question raised in federal court. Jones v. Coleman, 848 F.3d 744,\\n749-50 (6th Cir. 2017). Secretary Benson argues that because Michigan law already requires the\\nprotection of federal constitutional rights when driver’s licenses are suspended, 3 state courts\\n\\n 3See Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.323(4) (“The court shall set aside the secretary of state’s determination only\\nif 1 or more of following apply: (a) In determining whether a petitioner is eligible for full driving privileges, the\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 7\\n\\n\\nmight interpret the challenged law in a way that would eliminate the constitutional question. But\\nthe Supreme Court has rejected applying Pullman abstention on those grounds. See Zwickler v.\\nKoota, 389 U.S. 241, 251 (1967) (explaining that Pullman “abstention cannot be ordered simply\\nto give state courts the first opportunity to vindicate the federal claim”).\\n\\n The Younger abstention doctrine, meanwhile, cautions federal courts against exercising\\njurisdiction in cases where they are asked to enjoin pending state proceedings. See New Orleans\\nPub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 364 (1989). But the district\\ncourt did no such thing. There are no ongoing state proceedings here, only hypothetical\\nproceedings that Secretary Benson claims Plaintiffs may pursue.\\n\\n Declaratory relief. Secretary Benson also claims that the district court abused its\\ndiscretion by holding that it had jurisdiction to decide Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief.\\nBut no declaratory judgment has been issued, and our holding on the merits below moots the\\npossibility that one will be issued.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Standard of Review. Having established that the district court properly exercised\\njurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim, we now review the merits of the district court’s decision\\ngranting a preliminarily injunction against Secretary Benson. While the party seeking a\\npreliminary injunction “is not required to prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction\\nhearing,” Cert. Rest. Dry Cleaning Network L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535, 542 (6th Cir.\\n2007) (citation omitted), it remains the case that preliminary injunctions are an “extraordinary\\nand drastic remedy,” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 (2008) (citation omitted).\\nA preliminary injunction “may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled\\nto such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).\\n\\n Courts determine whether a party moving for a preliminary injunction has made that\\nshowing by weighing whether the party (1) “establish[ed] that he is likely to succeed on the\\nmerits,” (2) “that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,”\\n\\npetitioner’s substantial rights have been prejudiced because the determination is any of the following: (i) In violation\\nof the Constitution of the United States.”).\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 8\\n\\n\\n(3) “that the balance of equities tips in his favor,” and (4) “that an injunction is in the public\\ninterest.” Id. at 20. However, in a case such as this, where “a party seeks a preliminary\\ninjunction on the basis of a potential constitutional violation, the likelihood of success on the\\nmerits will often be the determinative factor.” Bailey v. Callaghan, 715 F.3d 956, 958 (6th Cir.\\n2013) (citation omitted).\\n\\n We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to grant a preliminary\\ninjunction, but we review de novo conclusions of law—such as whether Plaintiffs are likely to\\nsucceed on the merits—that undergird the district court’s decision. See City of Pontiac Retired\\nEmps. Ass’n v. Schimmel, 751 F.3d 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2014) (en banc).\\n\\n A.\\n\\n We begin by reviewing the district court’s legal conclusion that Plaintiffs were likely to\\nsucceed on the merits of their procedural due process claim. The Fourteenth Amendment\\nprohibits “any State” from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process\\nof law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Plaintiffs claim that they have been deprived of a\\nproperty interest—their driver’s licenses—without due process of law. “Property interests, of\\ncourse, are not created by the Constitution. Rather they are created and their dimensions are\\ndefined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state\\nlaw—rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement\\nto those benefits.” Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).\\n\\n As a threshold matter we must acknowledge that Plaintiffs do not claim merely a general\\nproperty interest in a driver’s license; their specific claim is to a property interest, as indigent\\nindividuals, in maintaining their driver’s licenses when state law requires they be suspended due\\nto unpaid court debt. Identifying with specificity the nature of the claimed property interest\\nmakes a difference, as shown in Roth. There, a college professor’s one-year teaching contract\\nexpired and was not renewed. He claimed that the university’s failure to provide him with any\\nnotice or opportunity for a hearing concerning its decision not to retain him violated his right to\\nprocedural due process. The district court was persuaded. After finding that the professor’s\\ninterest in retaining his job constituted a property interest (created by the public university’s\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 9\\n\\n\\nemployment contract with the professor) within the contours of the Fourteenth Amendment’s\\nDue Process Clause, the district court deployed a balancing test weighing the relative interests of\\nthe professor and the university and concluded that the university should have provided notice\\nand an opportunity for a hearing before deciding not to retain the professor. Id. at 570. The\\nSupreme Court had previously held that a teaching position at a public university can constitute a\\nproperty interest “that is safeguarded by procedural due process.” Id. at 576 (collecting cases).\\nThe Roth Court, however, reversed the district court, explaining that the “[professor]’s ‘property’\\ninterest in employment at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh was created and defined by the\\nterms of his appointment.” Id. at 578. The terms of the professor’s contract with the state\\nuniversity were akin to a property interest created by a statutory entitlement. Id. Looking to\\nthose terms, the Court concluded they did not create a property interest protected by the\\nFourteenth Amendment:\\n\\n Those terms secured his interest in employment up to June 30, 1969. But the\\n important fact in this case is that they specifically provided that the respondent’s\\n employment was to terminate on June 30. They did not provide for contract\\n renewal absent ‘sufficient cause.’ Indeed, they made no provision for renewal\\n whatsoever. . . . In these circumstances, the respondent surely had an abstract\\n concern in being rehired, but he did not have a property interest sufficient to\\n require the University authorities to give him a hearing when they declined to\\n renew his contract of employment.\\n\\nId. at 578.\\n\\n Similarly here. Supreme Court case law recognizes a protectible property interest in a\\ndriver’s license under state law. Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10 n.7 (1979). And indeed,\\nMichigan’s license-suspension scheme recognizes such an interest by providing notice and an\\nopportunity to be heard if a license holder wants to challenge his underlying liability for a traffic\\nviolation or the misapplication of a fine. Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.321a(1)-(3). But the mere\\nfact that a driver has a property interest in his license (or an interest in continued employment as\\na professor) under the Fourteenth Amendment does not answer the more particular question of\\nwhether Michigan law creates the specific property entitlement Plaintiffs claim. Roth illustrates\\nthe point because its holding depended on examining the nature of the claimed property interest\\n(in continued employment) and seeing if the professor enjoyed an entitlement to that interest\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 10\\n\\n\\nunder the relevant law. In that case, the terms of the professor’s employment contract with the\\npublic university showed he lacked an entitlement to continued employment.\\n\\n State law was likewise dispositive in Bell v. Burson, where the Court held that because\\nGeorgia’s statutory scheme made “liability [for an accident] an important factor in the State’s\\ndetermination to deprive an individual of his licenses, the State may not, consistently with due\\nprocess, eliminate consideration of that factor in its prior hearing.” 402 U.S. 535, 541 (1971).\\nThe Court also made clear that if “fault and liability [were] irrelevant to [Georgia’s] statutory\\nscheme,” then the absence of any hearing on liability “would be appropriate to the nature of the\\ncase.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1\\n(1978) (holding that Tennessee law established a right not to have utility services terminated\\nexcept for good cause and therefore that the absence of any pre-termination opportunity for a\\nhearing violated procedural due process).\\n\\n Here, as in Roth, Bell, and Memphis Light, we must ask whether state law establishes the\\nentitlement that Plaintiffs’ claim in this case—a right of the indigent, who cannot pay court debt,\\nto be exempt from driver’s-license suspension on the basis of unpaid court debt.4 The answer is\\nit has not.\\n\\n Neither the district court nor Plaintiffs identify any legal authority showing that Michigan\\nlaw directs anyone to consider a license holder’s indigency as part of the process of suspending\\nhis driver’s license for failure to pay court debt. On the contrary, Plaintiffs’ central argument\\nthroughout this litigation has been that “[Michigan] law—enforced by the Secretary—that\\nmandates suspensions for failure to pay court debt with no exception for indigence or non-\\nwillfulness.” Plaintiffs’ whole point is that Michigan’s statutory scheme does not create such an\\nentitlement.\\n\\n And that reading of Michigan law appears to be right. Michigan’s statutory scheme for\\nlicense suspension makes no reference to the indigency status of those whose licenses are subject\\nto suspension. See e.g., Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.321a(2) (“If the person fails to appear or fails\\n\\n 4We hold aside, for the moment, the question of whether such an entitlement can be found in the Equal\\nProtection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which we address in Part III.B.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 11\\n\\n\\nto comply with the order or judgment within the 14-day period, the court shall, within 14 days,\\ninform the secretary of state, who shall immediately suspend the license of the person.”).5\\n\\n Because Plaintiffs do not claim a legal entitlement that falls within the Fourteenth\\nAmendment’s protection of property, there is no need to proceed, as the district court did, to the\\nbalancing test laid out in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). See Roth, 408 U.S. at 570-\\n71 (“[A] weighing process has long been a part of any determination of the form of hearing\\nrequired in particular situations by procedural due process. But, to determine whether due\\n\\n\\n 5Secretary Benson’s approach to this litigation, meanwhile, muddies the waters. At first glance, one might\\nthink that Secretary Benson has in fact conceded that a pre-deprivation indigency hearing is currently required under\\nstate law. A more discerning look reveals that she made no such claim.\\n Secretary Benson argues that Plaintiffs neglected to pursue an “ability to pay” hearing at the Ferndale court\\nthat ultimately sent the information to Secretary Benson that triggered their license suspension. Secretary Benson\\nmaintains that Plaintiffs have not shown that the Ferndale court fails to provide what Plaintiffs request—“extensions\\nfor defendants who are unable to pay the full amount.” As a consequence, says Secretary Benson, Plaintiffs are\\nbarred from pursuing their procedural due process claim because they never took advantage of the process provided.\\n This argument does not concede that Michigan law clearly entitles Plaintiffs to an indigency exception.\\nSecretary Benson’s account of the process Plaintiffs failed to pursue relies on an affidavit from Linda Carroll, the\\nCourt Administrator for the 43rd District Court-Ferndale Division. The Carroll affidavit says nothing about\\nMichigan law, and more specifically it says nothing about the Michigan laws that the district court enjoined\\nSecretary Benson from enforcing. Instead, the Carroll affidavit says that there are court rules or policies with\\nprovisions “for night court (to allow an opportunity to appear in court without conflicting with work schedules),\\nextensions on payment requirements, ability to pay hearings, payment plans, as well as alternative payment options\\nwhich include community service.”\\n But there are two problems with the Carroll affidavit with respect to Plaintiffs’ procedural due process\\nclaim. First, even if the process accounted for in Carroll’s affidavit can serve as a body of law creating a legal\\nentitlement to an “ability to pay” hearing, Plaintiffs’ argument runs into a still more fundamental problem—their suit\\nnames the wrong party. Any injunction aimed at getting adequate notice of an available “ability to pay” hearing\\nwould need to be directed at either the 43rd District Court or the Clerk’s office. Whether such a claim would be\\nlikely to succeed is another matter for another day.\\n Second, it is doubtful whether the process described in the affidavit amounts to a legal entitlement of any\\nsort. The affidavit does not describe or cite the “provisions” to which it refers. When the affidavit refers to the\\nspecific “ability to pay” procedures of the court, they are described in discretionary terms as things that “the Clerk’s\\noffice will” do. Moreover, it appears from the Carroll affidavit that the procedures the Clerk makes available may be\\nin tension with other court rules:\\n Although court rules generally state that fees, costs and other financial obligations imposed by the\\n court must be paid at the time of assessment, for individuals present in court, the Clerk’s office\\n will: [lists relevant procedures].\\n Whatever the Carroll affidavit shows vis-à-vis the local rules or office practices of the 43rd District Court-\\nFerndale Division, it does not show that Michigan law establishes a right to an indigency exception from license\\nsuspension. The discretionary actions of a court administrator, or even a state judge, in adopting an administrative\\nprocess, do not amount to the statutory entitlement the Supreme Court has acknowledged as a legitimate basis for a\\nprocedural due process claim. Upon so flimsy a basis as that we could not conclude that “looking to the operation of\\nthe State’s statutory scheme, it is clear that [indigency] . . . plays a crucial role . . . .” Bell, 402 U.S. at 541.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 12\\n\\n\\nprocess requirements apply in the first place, we must look not to the ‘weight’ but to the nature\\nof the interest at stake.”) (footnote and citation omitted). Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim\\nfails.\\n\\n The same result would hold true even if we were to proceed to the Mathews analysis, as\\nthe dissent argues we should. The reason is simple. If Plaintiffs’ indigency is not relevant to the\\nstate’s underlying decision to suspend their licenses, then giving them a hearing—or any other\\nprocedural opportunity—where they can raise their indigency would be pointless. Such a\\nprocedure would do nothing to prevent the “the risk of erroneous deprivation.” Mathews v.\\nEldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). The Court’s driver’s-license-due-process cases recognize\\nthis basic truth. For instance, as explained above, Bell’s conclusion specifically hinged on\\nwhether state law made the factor at issue relevant to the license-suspension decision. 402 U.S.\\nat 541. Likewise, Dixon rejected a due process challenge because the plaintiff conceded that he\\nhad no substantive basis to contest the license-suspension decision. Dixon v. Lowe, 431 U.S.\\n105, 113–14 (1977). That concession meant plaintiff’s requested hearing “might make [him]\\nfeel that he has received more personal attention, but it would not serve to protect any\\nsubstantive rights.” Id. at 114. The Due Process Clause “does not protect procedure for\\nprocedure’s sake.” Rector v. City and County of Denver, 348 F.3d 935, 943-44 (10th Cir. 2003).\\nHere, Plaintiffs’ requested indigency hearing would be exactly that, absent a showing that\\nindigency is relevant to the license-suspension decision under Michigan law.\\n\\n The dissent does not argue otherwise. Instead, the dissent claims that indigency is\\nrelevant under Michigan law. But as explained above, neither the dissent nor any party cites to\\nanything in Michigan law establishing an indigency exception, and in fact the Plaintiffs\\nthemselves argue that Michigan law does not have one. See supra note 5 and accompanying text.\\nOf course, if Michigan law did have an indigency exception—for instance, if Michigan law\\nprohibited the Secretary from suspending the driver’s license of an indigent person—this case\\nwould look very different. Under that scenario, a suspension procedure that wholly failed to\\nconsider a person’s indigency would violate due process. But that is not the case before us.\\nInstead, the record does not establish this critical point, and therefore we cannot justify the\\n“extraordinary and drastic remedy” of a preliminary injunction. Munaf, 553 U.S. at 689; see also\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 13\\n\\n\\nNorth Carolina v. Covington, 137 S. Ct. 1624, 1626 (2017). Plaintiffs have not shown that their\\nprocedural due process claim is likely to succeed on the merits.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Plaintiffs have two more arrows in their quiver, both aimed at showing that Michigan’s\\ndriver’s-license-suspension scheme violates their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal\\nprotection of the law. They argue that Secretary Benson’s suspension of their licenses\\nconstitutes impermissible wealth discrimination under Griffin v. Illinois and its progeny. They\\nalso claim a violation of their rights against extraordinary debt collection, as established under\\nJames v. Strange. The district court found Plaintiffs’ arguments unlikely to succeed. As do we.6\\n\\n The Griffin Framework. Plaintiffs argue that Michigan’s driver’s-license-suspension\\nscheme violates the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted under Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12\\n(1956), and the cases following it: Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), Tate v. Short,\\n401 U.S. 395 (1971), Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971), and Bearden v. Georgia,\\n461 U.S. 660 (1983). Plaintiffs argue that, under these cases, the challenged law is subject to\\nsomething more than rational basis review. Alternatively, they argue that Michigan’s laws\\ncannot survive even rational basis review as they are manifestly “irrational and\\ncounterproductive when applied to indigent drivers.” Both arguments are unavailing.\\n\\n First, the district court correctly distinguished the Griffin cases from Plaintiffs’ claims\\nbecause none of the Griffin cases concerned a property interest. Those cases dealt with basic\\nfeatures of the criminal justice system—imprisonment, probation, and appeals.7 Property\\n\\n 6If found likely to succeed on these claims, Plaintiffs would have resuscitated the district court’s\\nconclusion on the procedural due process claim because they would have identified a legal entitlement in federal\\nconstitutional law that triggers the Due Process Clause. Of course, they would still have to show that the procedures\\nin place are constitutionally inadequate, an issue we do not address.\\n 7Griffin,through divided opinions, held that Illinois violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process\\nClauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to furnish trial transcripts to indigent criminal defendants who\\nneeded transcripts in order to file an appeal. Justice Black’s opinion explained that by doing so, Illinois “den[ied]\\nadequate appellate review to the poor while granting such review to all others.” 351 U.S. at 13 (plurality).\\nWilliams, in turn, relied on Griffin in concluding that a court could not increase an indigent defendant’s\\nimprisonment past her maximum sentence solely on the grounds that the defendant could not afford to pay fines\\nstemming from the original conviction. 399 U.S. at 242. In Tate, the Supreme Court decided a case concerning a\\ndebtor who had failed to pay fines accumulated from traffic offenses and had, as a consequence, been committed by\\na court to a municipal farm where he would work “to satisfy the fines at the rate of five dollars for each day.”\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 14\\n\\n\\ninterests are not due the same degree of legal protection as the fundamental liberty interests\\nimplicated in the Griffin line of cases. As a judge from one of our sister circuits said well:\\n\\n The Due Process Clause applies to both liberty and property. When there is a\\n distinction, property receives the lesser protection. The burden at a criminal trial,\\n where liberty is at issue, is “beyond a reasonable doubt”; the burden at a civil trial\\n involving property, by contrast, is “preponderance of the evidence.” In a criminal\\n trial that can end in a sentence of imprisonment, the defendant is entitled to\\n counsel at public expense if he cannot afford a lawyer; in a civil trial, by contrast,\\n a defendant who cannot afford a lawyer must represent himself. The list could be\\n extended, but the point has been made. Liberty receives the greater protection.\\n\\nMarkadonatos v. Vill. of Woodridge, 760 F.3d 545, 554 (7th Cir. 2014) (Easterbrook, J.,\\nconcurring).\\n\\n Cases cited by Plaintiffs do not show otherwise. True, the Supreme Court held in Mayer\\nthat an indigent defendant seeking to appeal a nonfelony conviction that did not entail\\nimprisonment was as entitled to access his trial transcripts as an indigent defendant seeking to\\nappeal a conviction punishable by imprisonment. 404 U.S. at 195-98. That holding does not,\\nhowever, undermine the critical distinction between liberty and property interests. An indigent\\ndefendant’s interest in accessing an appeal to challenge a finding of his criminal liability is not\\nthe same as an indigent person’s property interest in a driver’s license.\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ reliance on Bearden is likewise misplaced. They cite Bearden for the\\nproposition that Secretary Benson’s refusal to exempt those who are willing but unable to pay\\nviolates “the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Bearden Court,\\nhowever, merely held that the automatic revocation of a defendant’s probation (thereby sending\\nhim to jail) because of non-payment of a fine serves no legitimate penological interest unless the\\nsentencing judge inquires further into whether the defendant’s non-payment reflected an\\nunwillingness rather than an inability to pay. 461 U.S. at 670-73. Bearden, then, concerns what\\n\\n\\n\\n401 U.S. at 397. The Supreme Court found that this situation fell within Williams’ holding because the “petitioner\\nwas subjected to imprisonment solely because of his indigency.” Id. at 398. Mayer extended Griffin’s right of\\nindigent defendants to an appellate record to cases where a defendant seeks to appeal a conviction that threatens\\nfines, not imprisonment. 404 U.S. at 196. Lastly, in Bearden the Court held that Georgia’s law permitting probation\\nto be revoked due to a probationer’s inability to pay a fine (without a finding of fault or inquiry into alternative\\nforms of punishment) violated the Fourteenth Amendment under Griffin. 461 U.S. at 672-73.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 15\\n\\n\\nkind of process is due before a probationer is subject to confinement, not what kind of process is\\ndue before a driver’s license is subject to suspension.\\n\\n Second, contrary to Plaintiffs’ claims, their challenge to Michigan’s driver’s-license-\\nsuspension scheme is subject to rational basis review. We review equal protection challenges to\\nlaws on grounds of “wealth-classification” only to see if they have a rational basis. Molina-\\nCrespo v. U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 547 F.3d 651, 660 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing San Antonio Indep.\\nSch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 29 (1973)) (“[W]ealth discrimination alone does not provide\\nan adequate basis for invoking strict scrutiny.”). We explained in Johnson v. Bredesen that equal\\nprotection challenges to laws that “neither implicate[] a fundamental right nor target a suspect\\nclass” are subject to rational basis review. 624 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2010). Michigan’s\\nchallenged statute is such a law.8\\n\\n Third, Michigan’s driver’s-license-suspension scheme passes rational basis review.\\n“A ‘plaintiff may demonstrate that the government action lacks a rational basis either by\\nnegativing every conceivable basis . . . which might support the government action, or by\\ndemonstrating that the challenged government action was motivated by animus or ill-will.’”\\n\\n\\n 8First, Plaintiffs’ claim does not implicate a fundamental right. Plaintiffs concede that we have held “there\\nis no fundamental right to drive,” Duncan v. Cone, 2000 WL 1828089, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, 2000), but nonetheless\\nclaim that Michigan’s suspension of their driver’s licenses implicates the fundamental right to travel because, for the\\nindigent, especially where public transit is inadequate and distances between work, home, and market are great, an\\ninability to drive “actually deters travel.” Plaintiffs’ argument is misguided. A right only counts as fundamental\\nwhen it is “traditionally protected by our society” and “rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people.”\\nMichael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 122-23 (1989) (citation omitted). A putative right of the indigent to drive—\\neven in in a car-bound society where public transit may be woefully inadequate—is not a right rooted in the\\ntraditions and conscience of our people.\\n None of the authority cited by Plaintiffs indicates otherwise. The language “actually deters travel” comes\\nfrom Attorney Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez, in which a plurality of the Court stated that “[a] state law implicates\\nthe right to travel when it actually deters such travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses\\nany classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right.” 476 U.S. 898, 903 (1986). Soto-Lopez is not\\nitself instructive because the Court did not rely on the “actually deters travel” language in reaching its holding. The\\nauthority relied upon by Soto-Lopez for the “actually deters travel” language was Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall.\\n35 (1867), and Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). Neither case is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim. Shapiro\\nconcerned state laws denying welfare assistance to residents who had not resided within their jurisdiction for at least\\none year before applying for welfare assistance. Crandall dealt with a Nevada law that imposed a capitation tax on\\nall passengers leaving or passing through the state.\\n Second, Michigan’s law does not target a suspect class. “[A] class of less wealthy individuals is not a\\nsuspect class warranting strict scrutiny review.” Molina-Crespo, 547 F.3d at 660 (citation omitted); see also\\nJohnson, 624 F.3d at 746.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 16\\n\\n\\nJohnson, 624 F.3d at 747 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs do not argue the latter, so we are left with\\nthe question of whether Plaintiffs have met their burden by showing that they are likely to\\nsucceed in refuting “every conceivable basis” for Michigan’s driver’s-license-suspension\\nscheme. To qualify as having a rational basis, the challenged law “need only be rationally\\nrelated to legitimate government interests.” Id. at 746 (citation omitted).\\n\\n It is no struggle to conceive of the legitimate government interests pursued by a law\\nsuspending driver’s licenses for nonpayment of court debt. The state has a general interest in\\ncompliance with traffic laws. By imposing greater consequences for violating traffic laws, the\\nstate increases deterrence for would-be violators. The state also has legitimate interests in\\npromoting compliance with court orders and in collecting traffic debt. See id. at 747; see also\\nBlackhawk Mining Co., Inc., v. Andrus, 711 F.2d 753, 757 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that a law\\nrequiring prepayment of fines before an adequate hearing was justified because “the\\ngovernment’s interest in prompt assessment and collection of civil penalties to ensure\\ncompliance with the Act is substantial”).\\n\\n Plaintiffs maintain that suspending the driver’s license of an indigent license holder for\\nnonpayment is patently irrational because doing so makes it harder for him to obtain and hold a\\njob, which in turn makes him less likely to pay his court debt. Perhaps Plaintiffs are right that\\nthe policy is unwise, even counterproductive. But under rational basis review we ask only\\nwhether Michigan’s statutes are “rationally related to legitimate government interests.” Johnson,\\n624 F.3d at 746. Michigan’s choice to wield the cudgel of driver’s-license suspension for\\nnonpayment of court debt dramatically heightens the incentive to pay. Such a policy is rationally\\nrelated to “the government’s interest in prompt assessment and collection of civil penalties.”\\nBlackhawk Mining, 711 F.3d at 757. That this policy may in many cases make that—now more\\nhighly incentivized—payment harder to accomplish does not show that the law lacks a rational\\nbasis. “Misguided laws may nonetheless be constitutional. . . . Our task . . . is not to weigh this\\nstatute’s effectiveness but its constitutionality.” James v. Strange, 407 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1972).\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ Extraordinary Debt Collection Claim. Lastly, Plaintiffs claim that Michigan’s\\nlicense-suspension scheme violates their constitutional right against extraordinary debt collection\\nunder James v. Strange. In Strange, the Supreme Court struck down a Kansas recoupment\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 17\\n\\n\\nscheme that required indigent criminal defendants who were afforded counsel at public expense\\nto repay those expenses. Id. at 129-31. The constitutional defect with this policy was that it\\n“strip[ped] from indigent defendants the array of protective exemptions Kansas has erected for\\nother civil judgment debtors, including restrictions on the amount of disposable earnings subject\\nto garnishment, [etc.].” Id. at 135. The Court found this disparity not just when comparing\\nindigent defendants to private debtors, but also when comparing indigent defendants to\\nindividuals who owed debts to the state for public assistance. Id. at 136-37.\\n\\n Plaintiffs cite Strange for the proposition that Secretary Benson may not, consistent with\\nthe Equal Protection Clause, “subject[] [Plaintiffs] to a significantly harsher collection method\\nthan people who owe other types of debt.” Michigan law violates this principle, according to\\nPlaintiffs, because their licenses are suspended due to their court debt, while “people with unpaid\\nprivate debt do not face license suspension.”\\n\\n The district court correctly rejected this argument under Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40\\n(1974). The problem that Strange identified, according to the Fuller Court, was “the elimination\\nof exemptions normally available to judgment debtors.” Id. at 47. Here, there is no dispute that\\nthe challenged Michigan statutes do not eliminate any such exemptions. Moreover, the State is\\nuniquely empowered to grant, suspend, or reinstate driver’s licenses. Supreme Court precedent\\ndoes not require anything like exact parity between the State and private creditors in this regard.\\nThe Court in Strange said: “[w]e recognize, of course, that the State’s claim to reimbursement\\nmay take precedence, under appropriate circumstances, over the claims of private creditors and\\nthat enforcement procedures with respect to judgments need not be identical.” 407 U.S. at 138.\\nIt would be passing strange indeed to interpret Strange as putting Michigan to the choice of\\neither giving up its right to suspend the licenses of those with unpaid court debt or empowering\\nprivate creditors to suspend the driver’s licenses of those indebted to them.\\n\\n In any event, laws challenged under Strange are subject to rational basis review.\\nJohnson, 624 F.3d at 746. As established above, Michigan’s statutory scheme is rationally\\nrelated to legitimate government interests.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 18\\n\\n\\n C.\\n\\n As we have held before “[b]ecause the district court committed an error of law—on the\\nall-important likelihood-of-success factor, no less—it abused its discretion in granting a\\npreliminary injunction.” Southern Glazer’s Distribs. of Ohio, LLC v. Great Lakes Brewing Co.,\\n860 F.3d 844, 854 (6th Cir. 2017). The district court here erred in finding Plaintiffs likely to\\nsucceed on the merits and therefore abused its discretion in granting Plaintiffs’ requested\\npreliminary injunction. Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir. 2012) (“When a\\nparty seeks a preliminary injunction on the basis of a potential constitutional violation, the\\nlikelihood of success on the merits will often be the determinative factor.”).\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n We REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for proceedings\\nconsistent with this opinion.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 19\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n DISSENT\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4394928/\", \"author_raw\": \"ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge\"}, {\"author\": \"BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge, dissenting.1 The question before us is\\nwhether Michigan may, in accord with due process, impose an automatic license-suspension-\\nscheme on indigent drivers for failure to pay court fines without regard to their ability to pay and\\nwithout affording them reasonable payment alternatives. In my view, it may not.\\n\\n The Supreme Court has long recognized a protected property interest in the continued\\npossession of a driver’s license. See Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539 (1971). Once issued, it\\ncannot “be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth\\nAmendment.” Id. Yet, on its own account and without the benefit of briefing by the parties,2 the\\nmajority recasts the Plaintiffs’ claims as seeking “a [new] property interest” in an indigency\\nexception, one the majority concludes Plaintiffs have “no claim of legal entitlement.” Maj. Op.\\n8, 11. The majority’s analysis relies solely upon its determination that “Michigan law” does not\\n“establish[] [an] entitlement . . . right of the indigent . . . to be exempt from driver’s license\\nsuspension,” and thus the majority finds “no need to proceed . . . to the balancing test laid out in\\nMathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).” Maj. Op. 8, 11.\\n\\n The majority commits two critical errors. First, it ignores age-old Supreme Court\\nprecedent that squarely recognizes a protected property interest in the continued possession of a\\ndriver’s license and proceeds as if Plaintiffs must establish a more specific property interest.\\nSecond, and relatedly, it relies solely on Michigan’s deprivation procedures to define the extent\\nof Plaintiffs’ property interests. See Maj. Op. 10 (“Michigan’s statutory scheme for license\\nsuspension makes no reference to the indigency status of those whose licenses are subject to\\nsuspension.”). This puts the cart before the horse. Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly\\n\\n 1Iagree with the majority that Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action and that we need not abstain\\nunder the Younger or Pullman doctrines from reaching the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.\\n 2The Secretary does not dispute Plaintiffs’ claim that Michigan must provide them a hearing to contest\\ntheir ability to pay and seek alternatives before it suspends their driver’s licenses, much less contend Plaintiffs have\\nno claim of entitlement for which to challenge their suspensions. Tellingly, of the Secretary’s seventy-three-page\\nbrief, she devoted only three pages to due process.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 20\\n\\n\\nadmonished courts not to define a property interest by its deprivation procedures. See Cleveland\\nBd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985) (“‘Property’ cannot be defined by the\\nprocedures provided for its deprivation any more than can life or liberty.”). Thus, the majority’s\\napproach contravenes binding precedent and stifles fundamental due process protections.\\n\\n Under the proper due process framework, I believe Plaintiffs have an uncontroverted\\nproperty interest in the continued possession of their driver’s licenses. This principle holds true\\nwithout regard to the procedures a state establishes for its deprivation. Balancing the relevant\\ninterests, Michigan’s license-suspension scheme—mandating the suspension of driver’s licenses\\nfor failure to pay, without consideration of a person’s ability to pay—violates Plaintiffs’\\nprocedural due process rights. I respectfully dissent.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n The facts are largely undisputed. Michigan imposes fines for traffic violations. If those\\nfines are not paid within 14 days from the notice of suspension, Michigan law instructs the\\nSecretary to “immediately suspend” the person’s driver’s license.3 A driver is notified for the\\nfirst time that his or her driver’s license is subject to suspension 28 days after he or she fails to\\npay.\\n\\n Adrian Fowler and Kitia Harris are indigent and unable to pay the fines that resulted from\\ntheir traffic infractions. Fowler, a single mother, works part-time and earns $712 each month.\\nFowler alleges she turned down a better employment opportunity because it required her to travel\\nthrough the metropolitan area, something she cannot do without a driver’s license or suitable\\npublic transportation. She also contends that her inability to drive has reduced the likelihood that\\nshe will be able to pay her fines. Harris, also a single mother, suffers from a chronic medical\\ncondition and receives disability benefits in the amount of $1,218 each month. Harris alleges\\nthat, because she is unable to stand for long periods of time due to her health, she cannot use\\n\\n\\n 3Inaddition to fines, a driver is also subject to court costs of up to $100 and a mandatory assessment fee of\\n$40. Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.907(4), (13). The statute further provides that a 20% late fee be imposed on any\\namount unpaid after 56 days. Id. § 600.4803. Finally, a person “who fails to . . . pay[] all fines, costs, fees, and\\nassessments, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more\\nthan $100.00, or both.” Id. § 257.321a(1).\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 21\\n\\n\\npublic transportation and is unable to attend many of her doctor’s appointments. Fowler and\\nHarris both tried to establish a payment plan to pay their fines, but Michigan courts refused.\\n\\n The Secretary does not dispute that Plaintiffs are indigent and unable to pay their fines.\\nNor does the Secretary contest that due process requires that Plaintiffs receive notice and an\\nopportunity to demonstrate that they are unable to pay. To these points, the Secretary\\nemphatically agrees. Rather, the Secretary contends that Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights\\nare satisfied because Michigan does permit drivers to assert their inability to pay and seek\\nalternatives, and that Plaintiffs would have been provided notice of the available procedures had\\nthey appeared in court for the underlying traffic violation. 4\\n\\n The Due Process clause safeguards against a state’s impermissible deprivation of a\\nprotected property interest. Under the due process analysis, we consider two primary questions:\\nwhether the plaintiff has a liberty or property interest entitled to due process protection; and if so,\\nwhether the plaintiff was provided sufficient notice and afforded an opportunity to present\\nobjections. Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (citing Milliken v.\\nMeyer, 314 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). “Property interests are . . . created and their dimensions are\\ndefined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state\\nlaw.” Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972). Once it is determined\\nthat a property interest exists, “the question remains what process is due.” Morrissey v. Brewer,\\n408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972).\\n\\n The first question under the due process framework is forthright: The Supreme Court\\nhas long recognized that “[o]nce [driver’s] licenses are issued, . . . their continued possession\\nmay become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood . . . [and they] are not to be taken away\\nwithout that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Bell, 402 U.S. at\\n539 (citation omitted); Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10 (1979) (same); Dixon v. Love,\\n\\n 4Despite these averments, in the majority’s view, the Secretary “does not concede that Michigan law\\nclearly entitles Plaintiffs to an indigency exception.” Maj. Op. 11 n.5 (emphasis in original). Rather, according to\\nthe majority, the Secretary merely states the “rules or policies” of Michigan courts as provided by the court\\nadministrator. Maj. Op. 11 n.5. The record, however, belies this contention. According to the Secretary, “[o]fficial\\nstate records . . . show that the opportunity to raise an ability to pay for the enforcement of a court order is provided\\nby Michigan courts under existing law.” R. 33, at 465 (emphasis added). The “existing law” the Secretary\\nreferences is surely that of Michigan. Thus, the Secretary’s concession is unequivocal.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 22\\n\\n\\n431 U.S. 105, 112 (1977) (same). There is—without question—a property interest in the\\ncontinued possession of a driver’s license. Therefore, the only question remaining in the due\\nprocess analysis is what process is due before Michigan may suspend the driver’s license of an\\nindigent person for failure to pay fines. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 481. The factors set forth in\\nMathews provide the framework for determining the specific dictates of due process.\\n\\n Despite clearly established law, the majority concludes that Plaintiffs have no entitlement\\nright at all to challenge their license suspensions on the basis that they are indigent. According\\nto the majority, “the mere fact” that the Supreme Court has “recognize[d] a protectable property\\ninterest in a driver’s license under state law,” does not create the “more specific” entitlement\\ninterest in an indigency exception from license suspension. Maj. Op. 9. The majority’s analysis\\nrests entirely on its misapprehension of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roth.\\n\\n The Supreme Court in Roth held that a professor who was hired on a fixed term of one\\nacademic year did not have a protected property interest in continued employment after his\\ncontract ended. Roth, 408 U.S. at 578. The majority reads Roth to suggest that the specific\\n“nature of the claimed property interest” by Plaintiffs’ here is an indigency exception, not in\\ncontinued possession their driver’s licenses. This misreads Roth.\\n\\n The majority observes correctly that Roth looked to the “nature of the interest at stake” to\\ndetermine whether the Plaintiff had a protected property interest. Id. at 570–71. Missed by the\\nmajority, however, is that Roth looked to the professor’s employment contract—the “rules or\\nunderstanding” that conferred the underlying property interest—to determine the nature of the\\ninterest. Id. at 577–78. According to those terms, the Court explained that “the important fact”\\nwas that the plaintiff’s employment contract “specifically provided that . . . [his] employment\\nwas to terminate on June 30” and that “they made no provision for renewal whatsoever.” Id. at\\n578. Only then did the Court in Roth find that no property interest existed. Thus, Roth stands for\\nthe principle that due process does not protect against the deprivation of a continued interest in\\nproperty where state rules or regulations do not confer such an interest in its continued\\npossession. Id. at 573.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 23\\n\\n\\n The majority likens the one-year teaching contract in Roth to the Plaintiffs’ property\\ninterest in continued possession of their driver’s licenses. This comparison falls short. Central\\nto Roth’s holding was that the plaintiff had no “no tenure rights to continued employment.” Id.\\nat 566, 576–77 (distinguishing the plaintiff’s one-year contract from cases where a property\\ninterest existed in the continued employment of public college professors employed under\\n“tenure provisions”) (citations omitted). Whereas here, the Supreme Court has held that there is\\na property interest in the “continued possession” of a driver’s license and that it may “not to be\\ntaken away without that procedural due process.” Bell, 402 U.S. at 539 (citation omitted).\\nEmploying Roth, there is no question that the nature of the property interest at stake here is the\\ncontinued possession of Plaintiffs’ driver’s license.\\n\\n In cases following Roth, the Court has held steadfast to the principle that the nature of the\\nproperty interest at stake is ingrained in the rules or regulations that confer the underlying\\nproperty interest, not in the state’s deprivation procedures. For example, in Goss v. Lopez,\\nseveral high school students challenged Ohio’s statute that permitted school officials to suspend\\nstudents for 10 days for misconduct without providing students a pre-suspension hearing.\\n419 U.S. 565, 568–69 (1975). To determine the nature of the interest at stake, the Court turned\\nto the provision in Ohio’s law that conferred the underlying right to a free education and\\nconcluded that the students “plainly had legitimate claims of entitlement to a public education.”\\nId. at 573. Ohio’s statutory provision that set forth the suspension procedures was immaterial to\\nthe nature of the property interest at stake. Id. at 573–74.\\n\\n This Court has since reiterated this principle in the clearest of terms:\\n\\n [T]he parties suggest two sources for [plaintiff’s] property interest: the\\n Village’s procedure for evaluating requests for building permits and the building\\n permit itself. Of the two possible sources for the property interest at stake, only\\n the latter is cognizable. This Court has held that processes mandated by\\n municipal ordinances or state law are insufficient to establish a property interest.\\n\\nChandler v. Vill. of Chagrin Falls, 296 F. App’x 463, 469 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Richardson v.\\nTwp. of Brady, 218 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2000)). There is no question that, pursuant to controlling\\nprecedent, Michigan’s license-suspension scheme should not be considered in evaluating the\\nnature of the property interest at stake here. See Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 541 (“In short, once it is\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 24\\n\\n\\ndetermined that the Due Process Clause applies, . . . the [answer to the] question [of] what\\nprocess is due . . . is not to be found in the [state] statute.”).\\n\\n Compounding its foundational misapprehension of Roth, the majority then misreads the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Bell, taking it to stand for the proposition that this Court should\\nlook to Michigan’s license-suspension statute to determine whether “Michigan law” creates a\\nclaim of entitlement in an indigency exception. Maj. Op. 10. However, Bell does not support\\nsuch an approach. In Bell, the plaintiff challenged Georgia’s Motor Vehicle Safety\\nResponsibility Act, which provided that the driver’s license of an uninsured motorist involved in\\nan accident would be suspended unless that motorist could post a security bond for the amount of\\ndamages claimed by a party to the accident. Bell, 402 U.S. at 536. The pre-suspension\\nprocedures under the Georgia statute excluded any consideration of fault or responsibility for the\\naccident. Id. The Supreme Court held that the law’s failure to afford an uninsured motorist a\\npre-suspension hearing on fault was constitutionally deficient. Id. at 543.\\n\\n Although Bell canvassed the state’s deprivation statute to determine whether the statutory\\nscheme made “liability an important factor in the State’s determination to deprive an individual\\nof his licenses,” it did so only to determine what process was due, not to define the plaintiff’s\\nproperty interest, as the majority does here. Bell began its analysis by first emphasizing the\\ndriver’s protected property interest in the continued possession of his driver’s license. Id. at 539\\n(citation omitted). Once the plaintiff’s protected property interest was clearly established, only\\nthen did the Court “turn . . . to the nature of the procedural due process which must be afforded\\nthe licensee on the question of his fault or liability for the accident.” Id. at 539–40. Despite the\\nmajority’s averment to the contrary, the Court’s examination of the state’s license-suspension\\nstatute was of no consequence to its determination of whether the plaintiff had a claim of\\nentitlement to continued possession of his driver’s license.\\n\\n Having established that Plaintiffs have a protected property interest in the continued\\npossession of their driver’s licenses, “the question remain[ing] [is] what process is due.”\\nMorrissey, 408 U.S. at 481. At a minimum, due process requires that Michigan provide notice\\n“reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [Plaintiffs] of the pendency of the\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 25\\n\\n\\naction and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314\\n(citation omitted).\\n\\n Michigan did not provide Plaintiffs sufficient notice before it deprived them of their\\ndriver’s licenses. Even assuming that the Secretary is correct in the assertion that Plaintiffs were\\nprovided alternatives to payment in full before having their licenses suspended, it sets forth no\\nbasis for its failure to provide Plaintiffs with “adequate notice” of the available alternatives in the\\nstatute, the citations, or through the court’s website. See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 325 n.4\\n(explaining that the essence of due process requires “timely and adequate notice”). To satisfy the\\nnotice requirement under due process, Michigan must apprise drivers of the risk of having their\\nlicenses suspended if they fail to pay court fines and provide notice that they may contest their\\nability to pay by establishing that they are indigent and may seek alternatives to payment. It is\\nundisputed that the only notice provided to Plaintiffs instructs them that they must pay the costs\\nin full, unless a misdemeanor is involved, or they dispute liability of the traffic violation. Thus,\\nMichigan fails to afford Plaintiffs constitutionally-sufficient notice before it suspends their\\ndriver’s licenses for failure to pay.\\n\\n Because, “unlike some legal rules,” due process is “flexible” and “calls for such\\nprocedures as the particular situation demands,” we weigh the factors set forth in Mathews to\\ndetermine the scope of the hearing required:\\n\\n [f]irst, the private interest that will be affected by the official action;\\n second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the\\n procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute\\n procedural safeguards and finally, the Government’s interest, including the\\n function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or\\n substitute procedural requirements would entail.\\n\\nMathews, 424 U.S. at 334–35. Applying the balancing approach outlined in Mathews,\\nMichigan’s law violates procedural due process.\\n\\n The first and third factors are simple. It is unquestionable that the private interests at\\nstake are high when a state deprives a person of his or her driver’s license. A driver’s license can\\nbe a necessary element to maintaining a livelihood, and the Supreme Court has “frequently\\nrecognized the severity of depriving a person of the means of livelihood.” Loudermill, 470 U.S.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 26\\n\\n\\nat 543; see also Bell, 402 U.S. at 539 (recognizing that a driver’s license may become “essential\\nin the pursuit of a livelihood.”). The impact of the deprivation is far more severe for indigent\\ndrivers whose precarious financial position only worsens without the ability to drive. See United\\nStates v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 460 (1973) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“But no one who has had\\nclose contact with poor people can fail to understand how close to the margin of survival many\\nof them are.”). Certainly, an individual who has had their license suspended because they cannot\\nafford to pay a fine is at an extraordinary disadvantage in earning an income and obtaining basic\\nessentials. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 715 (1977) (“[D]riving an automobile” is “a\\nvirtual necessity for most Americans.”). Indeed, Fowler alleges she was forced to turn down a\\nbetter-paying job after Michigan suspended her license, and Harris contends she is unable to\\nregularly attend doctor’s appointments.\\n\\n On the other hand, the government’s interests in suspending driver’s licenses without a\\npre-deprivation hearing are minimal. The Secretary advances no argument that permitting the\\nPlaintiffs to challenge their ability to pay fines before having their licenses suspended would\\ncause undue fiscal or administrative burdens. Quite the opposite: the Secretary maintains that\\nMichigan does provide a pre-deprivation hearing for a driver to contest his or her ability to pay.\\nSee Appellant’s Br. at 50–51 (“[T]he process that was due was available to [the Plaintiffs],\\nincluding pre-deprivation indigency accommodations.”).\\n\\n Finally, the risk of erroneous deprivation of the driver’s license of a person who is truly\\nunable to pay is far too great unless there are added procedures. The question of whether one is\\nindigent would involve a fact-intensive inquiry that might require a driver to testify regarding\\ntheir financial status and provide documentation. This is a small price to pay to avoid financial\\nruination of an indigent individual or family. Given the balancing of these factors, due process\\nrequires that Michigan provide drivers a pre-deprivation hearing to contest their license-\\nsuspension on the basis that they are indigent and to provide reasonable alternatives to payment.\\nSee Bell, 402 U.S. at 542 (“[E]xcept in emergency situations (and this is not one) due process\\nrequires that when a State seeks to terminate an interest [in a driver’s license], it must afford\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 27\\n\\n\\n‘notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case’ before the termination\\nbecomes effective.”).5\\n\\n The majority, on the other hand, concludes that “even if we proceed to the Mathews\\nanalysis,” Plaintiffs’ due process claim still fails for the same reason it concludes Plaintiffs have\\nno property interest in the first instance: “indigency is not relevant to the state’s underlying\\ndecision to suspend their licenses.” Maj. Op. 12. The majority reads Bell and Dixon for the\\nprinciple that a state’s decision not to make a factor relevant to its deprivation scheme is\\ndispositive under Mathews. Neither case can be stretched so far; it would render the balancing\\ntest in Mathews meaningless.\\n\\n The Court in Bell affirmatively answered whether due process might still require a state\\nto consider factors that were not relevant to its deprivation scheme. According to Bell, if fault\\nand liability were “irrelevant to the [state’s] statutory scheme,” the specific “nature of the case”\\nwould dictate whether the state must nonetheless consider those factors. Bell, 402 U.S. at 541.\\nIn other words, the answer to this question depends on the “demands” of the “particular\\nsituation,” which can only be determined by balancing the Mathews factors—a crucial step the\\nmajority foregoes. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 321. Bell provides no support for the majority’s failure\\nto apply Mathews.\\n\\n Neither does Dixon. The majority, seizing upon a single phrase in Dixon—that the pre-\\ndeprivation hearing sought by the plaintiff “would not serve to protect any [of the plaintiff’s]\\nsubstantive rights” id. at 114—concludes that Plaintiffs have “no substantive basis to contest\\n[Michigan’s] license-suspension decision.” Maj. Op. 12. The majority places more on this\\nphrase than it can bear. First, the “only question” before the Court in Dixon was “one of timing.”\\nSee Dixon, 431 U.S. at 112 (recognizing that it was “clear” that the licensee enjoyed “all the\\nsafeguards procedural due process could be thought to require . . . .”). Second, the phrase was\\n\\n 5The Secretary points to Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 (1977) and argues that a post-deprivation hearing\\nalone is sufficient to comport with due process. Dixon does not support the Secretary’s argument because the\\ngovernment interest in that case was more urgent and compelling than the government interest in this case. The\\nscheme in Dixon targeted drivers who had accumulated a large number of traffic offenses, which gave rise to a\\nreasonable inference that they were significantly more likely to pose a risk to public safety if allowed to remain on\\nthe road. In contrast, Michigan’s license-suspension scheme relates solely to the collection of money. Under the\\nMathews factors, these different government interests justify different levels of process.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 28\\n\\n\\nrelative only to the Court’s assessment of the risk-of-erroneous-deprivation factor under\\nMathews. Id. at 113–14. Considering this factor alone, the Court determined that the risk was\\nminimal because the plaintiff did not challenge his convictions or the “adequacy of his\\nprocedural rights.” Id. Unlike in Dixon, Plaintiffs’ do challenge the adequacy of their\\nprocedural rights under Michigan law. The majority’s comparison to Dixon fails.\\n\\n What is more, the majority cannot escape that the Dixon Court upheld the state’s pre-\\ndeprivation procedures only after carefully weighing each of the Mathews factors. Id. at 113.\\nThe majority’s reliance upon a single phrase that related to only one of the three Mathew’s\\nfactors, while ignoring the Court’s analysis of the remaining factors, falls short. See Bd. of\\nCurators of University of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 86 n.3 (1977) (weighing “all relevant\\nfactors” to determine the specific dictates of due process). The majority’s approach skips over\\ncritical safeguards of due process.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Because I would affirm the district court on the basis that Michigan’s license-suspension\\nstatute violates Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights, I would not reach the equal protection\\nissue. However, because I also part ways with the majority’s equal protection analysis, I write\\nseparately to express my divergent views.\\n\\n At the outset, the fundamental principle pronounced in Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12\\n(1956) and its progeny, guides our equal protection analysis. Namely, that a state may not\\nsubject an indigent person “who, by definition, is without funds,” to a harsher punishment\\n“solely because [they are] unable to pay.” Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 242 (1970).\\n\\n In Griffin, the Supreme Court invalidated an Illinois statute that required all defendants to\\npurchase transcripts in order to appeal their convictions. Griffin, 351 U.S. at 13. Though\\nfacially neutral, it failed to “afford[] every convicted person, financially competent or not, the\\nopportunity to take an appeal,” because indigent persons were not provided an alternative\\nmechanism to receive an adequate transcript. Id. at 23; see also Williams, 399 U.S. at 244\\n(invalidating an Illinois statute that required all persons to pay fines arising from their conviction\\nbefore being released from jail without affording an exception for the indigent). Extending\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 29\\n\\n\\nGriffin’s principle, the Court in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 668–69 (1983) held that,\\nabsent evidence that the defendant “willfully refused” to pay or that “alternative methods of\\npunish[ment]” are inadequate to meet the state’s interest, the state could not constitutionally\\nrevoke the defendant’s probation for failure to pay.\\n\\n As its sole basis for distinguishing Griffin, the majority—relying on a single Seventh\\nCircuit concurrence in Markadonatos v. Vill. of Woodridge, 760 F.3d 545, 554 (7th Cir. 2014)\\n(Easterbrook, J., concurring)—contends that “property receives . . . less[] protection” than liberty\\ninterests. Maj. Op. 13–14. On this faulty foundation, the majority presumes that Griffin is\\ninapplicable here. Such sparse reasoning begs the question rather than answers it. That liberty\\ninterests receive a higher degree of protection than property is nearly inapposite to the more\\nparticular question of whether Griffin applies here. Certainly, when a state deprives an indigent\\nperson of their liberty, they are entitled to the full panoply of constitutional protections. But the\\nmajority does not explain why that means it must draw an arbitrary line between liberty and\\nproperty here. In my view, when a state deprives a person of an essential source of livelihood,\\n“solely because [they are] indigent and cannot immediately pay the fine in full,” Georgia, 461\\nU.S. at 664, the principle set forth in Griffin is implicated.\\n\\n To be sure, later cases reveal that Griffin’s principle cannot be so easily cabined to\\ninstances where imprisonment is at stake. Indeed, in Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189,\\n196 (1971), the Court rejected the state’s argument that Griffin was distinguishable because the\\ndefendant sought a fee exemption to obtain his transcript to appeal a judgment that resulted in\\nonly a civil fine. Mayer underscored Griffin’s holding that the refusal to allow an exception for\\nthe indigent was, as a constitutional matter, no different from adopting an “unreasoned\\ndistinction,” punishing indigent individuals more severely than non-indigent individuals for\\nreasons unrelated to their culpability. Id. at 196; see also M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996)\\n(applying Griffin to the state’s authority to terminate a parent-child bond); Kras, 409 U.S. at 445\\n(declining to extend Griffin’s principle to a fee waiver in the bankruptcy context because “not\\ngetting a discharge will effect no change with respect to basic necessities.”). Certainly,\\ndepriving a person of the means to a “basic, pervasive, and often necessary mode of\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 30\\n\\n\\ntransportation to and from one’s home [and] workplace” implicates a basic and fundamental\\nnecessity for which Griffin should apply. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 662 (1979).\\n\\n The majority concludes that Michigan’s license-suspension scheme withstands rational\\nbasis review because Michigan “has legitimate interests in promoting compliance with court\\norders and in collecting traffic debt.” Maj. Op. 15–16. Like the Courts in Griffin, Bearden, and\\nMayer, I find Michigan’s license-suspension scheme problematic. It is difficult to rationalize—\\nand, notably, the Secretary does not even attempt to do so—how suspending the driver’s license\\nof a person who is truly unable to pay makes it any more likely that Michigan will recover the\\ncosts it seeks to collect. Surely, suspending the driver’s license of “someone who through no\\nfault of his own is unable to [pay]” will not “make [payment] suddenly forthcoming.” Bearden,\\n461 U.S. at 670. Indeed, the “reasons for non-payment [are] of critical importance here.” Id. at\\n668. Thus, like Bearden, the high interests at stake warrant that Michigan “inquire into the\\nreasons for [Plaintiffs’] failure to pay” and “consider alterna[tives]” to payment in full before it\\nimposes an automatic suspension of licenses. Id. at 673.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Michigan’s license-suspension scheme imposes a harsher sanction on indigent drivers\\nthan their non-indigent peers. Given the great degree of deprivation at stake, Michigan’s failure\\nto inquire into a driver’s ability to pay and afford alternatives violates due process and equal\\nprotection. Because the majority’s decision today erodes essential constitutional promises,\\nI dissent!\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4394928/\", \"author_raw\": \"BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BATCHELDER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"DONALD"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"THAPAR"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BATCHELDER\": \", Circuit\", \"DONALD\": \", Circuit\", \"THAPAR\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617675/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Adrian FOWLER; Kitia Harris, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Jocelyn BENSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in Her Official Capacity, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0086p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n ADRIAN FOWLER; KITIA HARRIS, on behalf of ┐\n themselves and others similarly situated, │\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, │\n │\n > Nos. 17-2504/18-1089\n v. │\n │\n │\n JOCELYN BENSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in her │\n official capacity, │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint.\n No. 4:17-cv-11441—Linda V. Parker, District Judge.\n\n Argued: October 3, 2018\n\n Decided and Filed: May 8, 2019\n\n Before: BATCHELDER, DONALD, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: John G. Fedynsky, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL,\nLansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Phil Telfeyan, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW,\nWashington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: John G. Fedynsky, OFFICE OF THE\nMICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Phil Telfeyan,\nRebecca Ramaswamy, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW, Washington, D.C., John C. Philo,\nMAURICE & JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE,\nDetroit, Michigan, for Appellees.\n\n BATCHELDER, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which THAPAR, J., joined.\nDONALD, J. (pp. 19–30), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 2\n\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. This is a case about the constitutionality of\nMichigan’s driver’s-license suspension scheme, as applied to indigent drivers. Plaintiffs claim\nthat the Michigan Secretary of State’s suspension of an indigent person’s driver’s license, on the\nbasis of unpaid court debt, violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs contend that\nsuspending the driver’s licenses of the poor is irrational because license suspension makes their\ncommuting to and from work, for instance, much harder, and therefore reduces the chances that\nthey will pay the debt. Whatever merit Plaintiffs’ argument might have as a matter of policy, its\nmerit as a constitutional argument is diminished by the fact that our review of state legislative\nchoices in this arena is markedly deferential. Because Plaintiffs have not shown that Michigan’s\nlegal scheme is devoid of a rational basis, we decline Plaintiffs’ invitation to etch their preferred\ndriver’s-license policy into constitutional bedrock.\n\n The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin Michigan’s Secretary of State from\nenforcing Michigan’s driver’s-license suspension law. Because we find that the Secretary’s\nenforcement of Michigan law does not run afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment, we REVERSE.\n\n I.\n\n Adrian Fowler and Kitia Harris (“Plaintiffs”) are Michigan residents who claim that their\ndriver’s licenses were suspended due to their inability to pay court debt.1 Fowler lived in\nGeorgia between 2008 and 2012, where she acquired three tickets for civil infractions. She has\nnot paid the court debt associated with those tickets. In 2012, after moving to Michigan, Fowler\nattempted to renew her Michigan driver’s license, but was unable to do so because she had\noutstanding court debts in Georgia. In 2013, Fowler was cited for driving with a suspended\nlicense as well as speeding. Fowler claims that she went to the Ferndale, Michigan, court to\nexplain that she could not pay the costs associated with her ticket—nearly $600—and was told\n\n 1We refer to court debt as a catch-all term for fines, court costs, fees, or assessments identified under\nMichigan Compiled Laws § 257.321a.\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 3\n\n\nthat if she did not return in three weeks with full payment, a warrant would be issued for her\narrest.\n\n Fowler works 20 hours a week making $8.90 per hour. She claims that she lacks the\nresources to repay her court debts. Fowler claims that she is unable to find good-paying work as\na result of her suspended license because many desirable jobs require a commute for which there\nis no reliable public transit.\n\n Harris was ticketed in Michigan in 2016 for “impeding traffic.” She claims that the citing\nofficer told her to call a particular phone number to determine the amount she owed for the\nticket. Harris called the number (which put her in touch with the Michigan 43rd District Court-\nFerndale Division) and was told that she owed $150. Because she could not make that payment,\nHarris claims, she asked if she could be placed on a payment program, but was told that she\ncould not, and that if she waited too long to pay off the ticket, her driver’s license would be\nsuspended. Roughly a month after her phone call, Harris received a notice in the mail saying\nthat her failure to pay the fine resulted in an increase in the amount she owed and that her\ndriver’s license had been suspended. After this lawsuit was filed, Harris’ license was subject to\nsuspension on three new grounds unrelated to her failure to pay the court debt stemming from\nher impeding traffic charge.\n\n Michigan’s Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson (“Secretary Benson”),2 disputes Harris’\naccount of her interaction with the Ferndale court. Secretary Benson claims that when Harris\ncontacted the court in October 2016, she was given an extension to permit her to make a payment\nby November 7, 2016, and was informed that a payment by that deadline would give her another\nextension on the balance and keep her license from being suspended. But because Harris failed\nto make a payment, the Ferndale court entered default judgment against her on November 14,\n2016, and her license was suspended. Secretary Benson claims that, had Harris contacted the\nFerndale court again, the court would have made a payment arrangement with her to avoid the\nsuspension of her license. In support of this claim, Secretary Benson provided the affidavit of\n\n 2Thisappeal was filed when Ruth Johnson held the office of Secretary of State of the State of Michigan.\nPursuant to FRAP 43(c)(2) Automatic Substitution of Officeholder, the court has substituted her successor, Jocelyn\nBenson, as a party.\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 4\n\n\nLinda Carroll, the Court Administrator for the Ferndale court, who explained that “[a]nyone that\ncalls in and makes any type of payment will always be granted an extension.” These repayment\nplans can be started at as little as $1 per payment. Carroll also claims that individuals are\ninformed that they can raise their inability to pay at a show-cause hearing.\n\n According to Harris, having her license suspended has been a burden, and she lacks the\nresources to pay her court debt. Although she receives disability benefits, she claims that, after\naccounting for living expenses, caring for her daughter, and paying off her medical debt, she\nlacks sufficient resources to pay the amount she owes in order to have her suspended license\nreinstated. Harris claims that, on account of her suspended license, among other consequences,\nshe struggles to attend her regular medical appointments.\n\n Plaintiffs brought a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Secretary\nBenson for unlawfully suspending their driver’s licenses. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,\nclaiming that Secretary Benson’s suspension of the driver’s licenses of the indigent who are\nunable to make payments violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the\nConstitution. The district court found only one of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims likely to\nsucceed on the merits—Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim that they were constitutionally\nentitled to an “ability to pay” hearing prior to the deprivation of their driver’s licenses. The\ncurrent version of the preliminary injunction order issued by the district court is as follows:\n\n Defendant is enjoined from suspending any further driver’s licenses of individuals\n because of nonpayment of any fine, cost, fee or assessment under Michigan\n Compiled Laws § 257.321a unless and until Defendant or another entity:\n (1) offers drivers the option to request a hearing where they have the opportunity\n to demonstrate their inability to pay a fine, cost, fee and/or assessment;\n (2) provides a hearing when requested; (3) provides reasonable notice to drivers\n of the hearing opportunity; and (4) institutes alternatives to full payment for those\n unable to pay (e.g. realistic payment plans or volunteer service).\n\n II.\n\n Before reviewing the district court’s preliminary injunction order on the merits, we must\naddress Secretary Benson’s four challenges to the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 5\n\n\n Standing. We review de novo the district court’s conclusion regarding standing. Friends\nof Tims Ford v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 585 F.3d 955, 966 (6th Cir. 2009). Secretary Benson\nchallenges on two distinct grounds Plaintiffs’ standing to bring suit. First, Secretary Benson\ndisputes Plaintiffs’ factual account of the process the Ferndale court afforded to Plaintiffs. The\ndistrict court, following Gentek Building Products, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320\n(6th Cir. 2007), correctly held that Secretary Benson’s factual dispute implicates the merits of\nPlaintiffs’ claims, and therefore a factual inquiry into the allegations was inappropriate to\ndetermine standing. Secretary Benson argues that Gentek is inapplicable because it concerned a\nmotion to dismiss rather than what we have here—a standing challenge to a claim seeking\ninjunctive relief. This is a distinction without a material difference as Gentek’s holding—“a\ndistrict court engages in a factual inquiry regarding the complaint’s allegations only when the\nfacts necessary to sustain jurisdiction do not implicate the merits of the plaintiff’s claim”—\napplies equally in this situation. 491 F.3d at 330.\n\n Second, Secretary Benson argues that Plaintiffs’ claimed injury is not redressible. For\nArticle III standing, the relief sought by a plaintiff “must provide redress for the injury.”\nParsons v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 801 F.3d 701, 715 (6th Cir. 2015). The district court\nrightly found this requirement met by Plaintiffs insofar as “a favorable decision would remedy\nthe violation of Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights . . . [and] puts Plaintiffs one step closer\nto regaining their driving privileges.” The district court acknowledged that “other impediments”\nmay remain for Plaintiffs to regain their driver’s licenses but held that the elimination of one\nsubstantial obstacle for Plaintiffs to regain their licenses constituted “substantial and meaningful\nrelief” sufficient to render their claimed injury redressable. The district court’s conclusion was\njustified under Supreme Court precedent. In Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan\nHousing Development Corp., the Court held that even if “[a]n injunction would not . . . guarantee\nthat” a plaintiff will achieve his desired final outcome, the injunction will have provided\nconstitutionally sufficient redress if it “removed” a “barrier” to doing so. 429 U.S. 252, 261\n(1977).\n\n Rooker-Feldman. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of\nColumbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), hold that only the Supreme Court\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 6\n\n\nmay review judgments entered by state courts in civil litigation. The doctrine, therefore, bars a\nlower federal appellate court from reviewing a plaintiff’s claim when a state court’s judgment is\nthe source of the plaintiff’s injury. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S.\n280, 283-84 (2005).\n\n Secretary Benson argues that Plaintiffs are appealing the adverse judgment of Michigan\ntrial courts, thereby contravening the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. But the Michigan statute is\nclear—it is the Secretary who suspends licenses, even if the Secretary does so only after getting\ncertain information from trial courts. Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.321a(2). As we explained in\nMcCormick v. Braverman:\n\n The inquiry then is the source of the injury the plaintiff alleges in the federal\n complaint. If the source of the injury is the state court decision, then the Rooker-\n Feldman doctrine would prevent the district court from asserting jurisdiction.\n If there is some other source of injury, such as a third-party’s actions, then the\n plaintiff asserts an independent claim.\n\n451 F.3d 382, 393 (6th Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs’ suit seeks review of Secretary Benson’s\nsuspension of their licenses regardless of the validity of any state court decision. The fact that\nstate court decisions form part of the basis for the Secretary’s suspension action is immaterial.\nId. at 394 (“To the extent that Defendants argue that these claims, even though they do not assert\ninjury from the state court judgments, are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with those judgments so as\nto fall within the reach of Rooker-Feldman, that argument must fail.”).\n\n Pullman and Younger. Secretary Benson argues that the district court should have\nabstained from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under Railroad Commission of\nTexas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), and Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).\nPullman abstention instructs courts to avoid exercising jurisdiction in cases involving an\nambiguous state statute that may be interpreted by state courts so as to eliminate, or at least alter\nmaterially, the constitutional question raised in federal court. Jones v. Coleman, 848 F.3d 744,\n749-50 (6th Cir. 2017). Secretary Benson argues that because Michigan law already requires the\nprotection of federal constitutional rights when driver’s licenses are suspended, 3 state courts\n\n 3See Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.323(4) (“The court shall set aside the secretary of state’s determination only\nif 1 or more of following apply: (a) In determining whether a petitioner is eligible for full driving privileges, the\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 7\n\n\nmight interpret the challenged law in a way that would eliminate the constitutional question. But\nthe Supreme Court has rejected applying Pullman abstention on those grounds. See Zwickler v.\nKoota, 389 U.S. 241, 251 (1967) (explaining that Pullman “abstention cannot be ordered simply\nto give state courts the first opportunity to vindicate the federal claim”).\n\n The Younger abstention doctrine, meanwhile, cautions federal courts against exercising\njurisdiction in cases where they are asked to enjoin pending state proceedings. See New Orleans\nPub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 364 (1989). But the district\ncourt did no such thing. There are no ongoing state proceedings here, only hypothetical\nproceedings that Secretary Benson claims Plaintiffs may pursue.\n\n Declaratory relief. Secretary Benson also claims that the district court abused its\ndiscretion by holding that it had jurisdiction to decide Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief.\nBut no declaratory judgment has been issued, and our holding on the merits below moots the\npossibility that one will be issued.\n\n III.\n\n Standard of Review. Having established that the district court properly exercised\njurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim, we now review the merits of the district court’s decision\ngranting a preliminarily injunction against Secretary Benson. While the party seeking a\npreliminary injunction “is not required to prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction\nhearing,” Cert. Rest. Dry Cleaning Network L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535, 542 (6th Cir.\n2007) (citation omitted), it remains the case that preliminary injunctions are an “extraordinary\nand drastic remedy,” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 (2008) (citation omitted).\nA preliminary injunction “may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled\nto such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).\n\n Courts determine whether a party moving for a preliminary injunction has made that\nshowing by weighing whether the party (1) “establish[ed] that he is likely to succeed on the\nmerits,” (2) “that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,”\n\npetitioner’s substantial rights have been prejudiced because the determination is any of the following: (i) In violation\nof the Constitution of the United States.”).\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 8\n\n\n(3) “that the balance of equities tips in his favor,” and (4) “that an injunction is in the public\ninterest.” Id. at 20. However, in a case such as this, where “a party seeks a preliminary\ninjunction on the basis of a potential constitutional violation, the likelihood of success on the\nmerits will often be the determinative factor.” Bailey v. Callaghan, 715 F.3d 956, 958 (6th Cir.\n2013) (citation omitted).\n\n We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to grant a preliminary\ninjunction, but we review de novo conclusions of law—such as whether Plaintiffs are likely to\nsucceed on the merits—that undergird the district court’s decision. See City of Pontiac Retired\nEmps. Ass’n v. Schimmel, 751 F.3d 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2014) (en banc).\n\n A.\n\n We begin by reviewing the district court’s legal conclusion that Plaintiffs were likely to\nsucceed on the merits of their procedural due process claim. The Fourteenth Amendment\nprohibits “any State” from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process\nof law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Plaintiffs claim that they have been deprived of a\nproperty interest—their driver’s licenses—without due process of law. “Property interests, of\ncourse, are not created by the Constitution. Rather they are created and their dimensions are\ndefined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state\nlaw—rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement\nto those benefits.” Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).\n\n As a threshold matter we must acknowledge that Plaintiffs do not claim merely a general\nproperty interest in a driver’s license; their specific claim is to a property interest, as indigent\nindividuals, in maintaining their driver’s licenses when state law requires they be suspended due\nto unpaid court debt. Identifying with specificity the nature of the claimed property interest\nmakes a difference, as shown in Roth. There, a college professor’s one-year teaching contract\nexpired and was not renewed. He claimed that the university’s failure to provide him with any\nnotice or opportunity for a hearing concerning its decision not to retain him violated his right to\nprocedural due process. The district court was persuaded. After finding that the professor’s\ninterest in retaining his job constituted a property interest (created by the public university’s\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 9\n\n\nemployment contract with the professor) within the contours of the Fourteenth Amendment’s\nDue Process Clause, the district court deployed a balancing test weighing the relative interests of\nthe professor and the university and concluded that the university should have provided notice\nand an opportunity for a hearing before deciding not to retain the professor. Id. at 570. The\nSupreme Court had previously held that a teaching position at a public university can constitute a\nproperty interest “that is safeguarded by procedural due process.” Id. at 576 (collecting cases).\nThe Roth Court, however, reversed the district court, explaining that the “[professor]’s ‘property’\ninterest in employment at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh was created and defined by the\nterms of his appointment.” Id. at 578. The terms of the professor’s contract with the state\nuniversity were akin to a property interest created by a statutory entitlement. Id. Looking to\nthose terms, the Court concluded they did not create a property interest protected by the\nFourteenth Amendment:\n\n Those terms secured his interest in employment up to June 30, 1969. But the\n important fact in this case is that they specifically provided that the respondent’s\n employment was to terminate on June 30. They did not provide for contract\n renewal absent ‘sufficient cause.’ Indeed, they made no provision for renewal\n whatsoever. . . . In these circumstances, the respondent surely had an abstract\n concern in being rehired, but he did not have a property interest sufficient to\n require the University authorities to give him a hearing when they declined to\n renew his contract of employment.\n\nId. at 578.\n\n Similarly here. Supreme Court case law recognizes a protectible property interest in a\ndriver’s license under state law. Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10 n.7 (1979). And indeed,\nMichigan’s license-suspension scheme recognizes such an interest by providing notice and an\nopportunity to be heard if a license holder wants to challenge his underlying liability for a traffic\nviolation or the misapplication of a fine. Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.321a(1)-(3). But the mere\nfact that a driver has a property interest in his license (or an interest in continued employment as\na professor) under the Fourteenth Amendment does not answer the more particular question of\nwhether Michigan law creates the specific property entitlement Plaintiffs claim. Roth illustrates\nthe point because its holding depended on examining the nature of the claimed property interest\n(in continued employment) and seeing if the professor enjoyed an entitlement to that interest\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 10\n\n\nunder the relevant law. In that case, the terms of the professor’s employment contract with the\npublic university showed he lacked an entitlement to continued employment.\n\n State law was likewise dispositive in Bell v. Burson, where the Court held that because\nGeorgia’s statutory scheme made “liability [for an accident] an important factor in the State’s\ndetermination to deprive an individual of his licenses, the State may not, consistently with due\nprocess, eliminate consideration of that factor in its prior hearing.” 402 U.S. 535, 541 (1971).\nThe Court also made clear that if “fault and liability [were] irrelevant to [Georgia’s] statutory\nscheme,” then the absence of any hearing on liability “would be appropriate to the nature of the\ncase.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1\n(1978) (holding that Tennessee law established a right not to have utility services terminated\nexcept for good cause and therefore that the absence of any pre-termination opportunity for a\nhearing violated procedural due process).\n\n Here, as in Roth, Bell, and Memphis Light, we must ask whether state law establishes the\nentitlement that Plaintiffs’ claim in this case—a right of the indigent, who cannot pay court debt,\nto be exempt from driver’s-license suspension on the basis of unpaid court debt.4 The answer is\nit has not.\n\n Neither the district court nor Plaintiffs identify any legal authority showing that Michigan\nlaw directs anyone to consider a license holder’s indigency as part of the process of suspending\nhis driver’s license for failure to pay court debt. On the contrary, Plaintiffs’ central argument\nthroughout this litigation has been that “[Michigan] law—enforced by the Secretary—that\nmandates suspensions for failure to pay court debt with no exception for indigence or non-\nwillfulness.” Plaintiffs’ whole point is that Michigan’s statutory scheme does not create such an\nentitlement.\n\n And that reading of Michigan law appears to be right. Michigan’s statutory scheme for\nlicense suspension makes no reference to the indigency status of those whose licenses are subject\nto suspension. See e.g., Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.321a(2) (“If the person fails to appear or fails\n\n 4We hold aside, for the moment, the question of whether such an entitlement can be found in the Equal\nProtection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which we address in Part III.B.\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 11\n\n\nto comply with the order or judgment within the 14-day period, the court shall, within 14 days,\ninform the secretary of state, who shall immediately suspend the license of the person.”).5\n\n Because Plaintiffs do not claim a legal entitlement that falls within the Fourteenth\nAmendment’s protection of property, there is no need to proceed, as the district court did, to the\nbalancing test laid out in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). See Roth, 408 U.S. at 570-\n71 (“[A] weighing process has long been a part of any determination of the form of hearing\nrequired in particular situations by procedural due process. But, to determine whether due\n\n\n 5Secretary Benson’s approach to this litigation, meanwhile, muddies the waters. At first glance, one might\nthink that Secretary Benson has in fact conceded that a pre-deprivation indigency hearing is currently required under\nstate law. A more discerning look reveals that she made no such claim.\n Secretary Benson argues that Plaintiffs neglected to pursue an “ability to pay” hearing at the Ferndale court\nthat ultimately sent the information to Secretary Benson that triggered their license suspension. Secretary Benson\nmaintains that Plaintiffs have not shown that the Ferndale court fails to provide what Plaintiffs request—“extensions\nfor defendants who are unable to pay the full amount.” As a consequence, says Secretary Benson, Plaintiffs are\nbarred from pursuing their procedural due process claim because they never took advantage of the process provided.\n This argument does not concede that Michigan law clearly entitles Plaintiffs to an indigency exception.\nSecretary Benson’s account of the process Plaintiffs failed to pursue relies on an affidavit from Linda Carroll, the\nCourt Administrator for the 43rd District Court-Ferndale Division. The Carroll affidavit says nothing about\nMichigan law, and more specifically it says nothing about the Michigan laws that the district court enjoined\nSecretary Benson from enforcing. Instead, the Carroll affidavit says that there are court rules or policies with\nprovisions “for night court (to allow an opportunity to appear in court without conflicting with work schedules),\nextensions on payment requirements, ability to pay hearings, payment plans, as well as alternative payment options\nwhich include community service.”\n But there are two problems with the Carroll affidavit with respect to Plaintiffs’ procedural due process\nclaim. First, even if the process accounted for in Carroll’s affidavit can serve as a body of law creating a legal\nentitlement to an “ability to pay” hearing, Plaintiffs’ argument runs into a still more fundamental problem—their suit\nnames the wrong party. Any injunction aimed at getting adequate notice of an available “ability to pay” hearing\nwould need to be directed at either the 43rd District Court or the Clerk’s office. Whether such a claim would be\nlikely to succeed is another matter for another day.\n Second, it is doubtful whether the process described in the affidavit amounts to a legal entitlement of any\nsort. The affidavit does not describe or cite the “provisions” to which it refers. When the affidavit refers to the\nspecific “ability to pay” procedures of the court, they are described in discretionary terms as things that “the Clerk’s\noffice will” do. Moreover, it appears from the Carroll affidavit that the procedures the Clerk makes available may be\nin tension with other court rules:\n Although court rules generally state that fees, costs and other financial obligations imposed by the\n court must be paid at the time of assessment, for individuals present in court, the Clerk’s office\n will: [lists relevant procedures].\n Whatever the Carroll affidavit shows vis-à-vis the local rules or office practices of the 43rd District Court-\nFerndale Division, it does not show that Michigan law establishes a right to an indigency exception from license\nsuspension. The discretionary actions of a court administrator, or even a state judge, in adopting an administrative\nprocess, do not amount to the statutory entitlement the Supreme Court has acknowledged as a legitimate basis for a\nprocedural due process claim. Upon so flimsy a basis as that we could not conclude that “looking to the operation of\nthe State’s statutory scheme, it is clear that [indigency] . . . plays a crucial role . . . .” Bell, 402 U.S. at 541.\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 12\n\n\nprocess requirements apply in the first place, we must look not to the ‘weight’ but to the nature\nof the interest at stake.”) (footnote and citation omitted). Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim\nfails.\n\n The same result would hold true even if we were to proceed to the Mathews analysis, as\nthe dissent argues we should. The reason is simple. If Plaintiffs’ indigency is not relevant to the\nstate’s underlying decision to suspend their licenses, then giving them a hearing—or any other\nprocedural opportunity—where they can raise their indigency would be pointless. Such a\nprocedure would do nothing to prevent the “the risk of erroneous deprivation.” Mathews v.\nEldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). The Court’s driver’s-license-due-process cases recognize\nthis basic truth. For instance, as explained above, Bell’s conclusion specifically hinged on\nwhether state law made the factor at issue relevant to the license-suspension decision. 402 U.S.\nat 541. Likewise, Dixon rejected a due process challenge because the plaintiff conceded that he\nhad no substantive basis to contest the license-suspension decision. Dixon v. Lowe, 431 U.S.\n105, 113–14 (1977). That concession meant plaintiff’s requested hearing “might make [him]\nfeel that he has received more personal attention, but it would not serve to protect any\nsubstantive rights.” Id. at 114. The Due Process Clause “does not protect procedure for\nprocedure’s sake.” Rector v. City and County of Denver, 348 F.3d 935, 943-44 (10th Cir. 2003).\nHere, Plaintiffs’ requested indigency hearing would be exactly that, absent a showing that\nindigency is relevant to the license-suspension decision under Michigan law.\n\n The dissent does not argue otherwise. Instead, the dissent claims that indigency is\nrelevant under Michigan law. But as explained above, neither the dissent nor any party cites to\nanything in Michigan law establishing an indigency exception, and in fact the Plaintiffs\nthemselves argue that Michigan law does not have one. See supra note 5 and accompanying text.\nOf course, if Michigan law did have an indigency exception—for instance, if Michigan law\nprohibited the Secretary from suspending the driver’s license of an indigent person—this case\nwould look very different. Under that scenario, a suspension procedure that wholly failed to\nconsider a person’s indigency would violate due process. But that is not the case before us.\nInstead, the record does not establish this critical point, and therefore we cannot justify the\n“extraordinary and drastic remedy” of a preliminary injunction. Munaf, 553 U.S. at 689; see also\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 13\n\n\nNorth Carolina v. Covington, 137 S. Ct. 1624, 1626 (2017). Plaintiffs have not shown that their\nprocedural due process claim is likely to succeed on the merits.\n\n B.\n\n Plaintiffs have two more arrows in their quiver, both aimed at showing that Michigan’s\ndriver’s-license-suspension scheme violates their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal\nprotection of the law. They argue that Secretary Benson’s suspension of their licenses\nconstitutes impermissible wealth discrimination under Griffin v. Illinois and its progeny. They\nalso claim a violation of their rights against extraordinary debt collection, as established under\nJames v. Strange. The district court found Plaintiffs’ arguments unlikely to succeed. As do we.6\n\n The Griffin Framework. Plaintiffs argue that Michigan’s driver’s-license-suspension\nscheme violates the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted under Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12\n(1956), and the cases following it: Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), Tate v. Short,\n401 U.S. 395 (1971), Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971), and Bearden v. Georgia,\n461 U.S. 660 (1983). Plaintiffs argue that, under these cases, the challenged law is subject to\nsomething more than rational basis review. Alternatively, they argue that Michigan’s laws\ncannot survive even rational basis review as they are manifestly “irrational and\ncounterproductive when applied to indigent drivers.” Both arguments are unavailing.\n\n First, the district court correctly distinguished the Griffin cases from Plaintiffs’ claims\nbecause none of the Griffin cases concerned a property interest. Those cases dealt with basic\nfeatures of the criminal justice system—imprisonment, probation, and appeals.7 Property\n\n 6If found likely to succeed on these claims, Plaintiffs would have resuscitated the district court’s\nconclusion on the procedural due process claim because they would have identified a legal entitlement in federal\nconstitutional law that triggers the Due Process Clause. Of course, they would still have to show that the procedures\nin place are constitutionally inadequate, an issue we do not address.\n 7Griffin,through divided opinions, held that Illinois violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process\nClauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to furnish trial transcripts to indigent criminal defendants who\nneeded transcripts in order to file an appeal. Justice Black’s opinion explained that by doing so, Illinois “den[ied]\nadequate appellate review to the poor while granting such review to all others.” 351 U.S. at 13 (plurality).\nWilliams, in turn, relied on Griffin in concluding that a court could not increase an indigent defendant’s\nimprisonment past her maximum sentence solely on the grounds that the defendant could not afford to pay fines\nstemming from the original conviction. 399 U.S. at 242. In Tate, the Supreme Court decided a case concerning a\ndebtor who had failed to pay fines accumulated from traffic offenses and had, as a consequence, been committed by\na court to a municipal farm where he would work “to satisfy the fines at the rate of five dollars for each day.”\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 14\n\n\ninterests are not due the same degree of legal protection as the fundamental liberty interests\nimplicated in the Griffin line of cases. As a judge from one of our sister circuits said well:\n\n The Due Process Clause applies to both liberty and property. When there is a\n distinction, property receives the lesser protection. The burden at a criminal trial,\n where liberty is at issue, is “beyond a reasonable doubt”; the burden at a civil trial\n involving property, by contrast, is “preponderance of the evidence.” In a criminal\n trial that can end in a sentence of imprisonment, the defendant is entitled to\n counsel at public expense if he cannot afford a lawyer; in a civil trial, by contrast,\n a defendant who cannot afford a lawyer must represent himself. The list could be\n extended, but the point has been made. Liberty receives the greater protection.\n\nMarkadonatos v. Vill. of Woodridge, 760 F.3d 545, 554 (7th Cir. 2014) (Easterbrook, J.,\nconcurring).\n\n Cases cited by Plaintiffs do not show otherwise. True, the Supreme Court held in Mayer\nthat an indigent defendant seeking to appeal a nonfelony conviction that did not entail\nimprisonment was as entitled to access his trial transcripts as an indigent defendant seeking to\nappeal a conviction punishable by imprisonment. 404 U.S. at 195-98. That holding does not,\nhowever, undermine the critical distinction between liberty and property interests. An indigent\ndefendant’s interest in accessing an appeal to challenge a finding of his criminal liability is not\nthe same as an indigent person’s property interest in a driver’s license.\n\n Plaintiffs’ reliance on Bearden is likewise misplaced. They cite Bearden for the\nproposition that Secretary Benson’s refusal to exempt those who are willing but unable to pay\nviolates “the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Bearden Court,\nhowever, merely held that the automatic revocation of a defendant’s probation (thereby sending\nhim to jail) because of non-payment of a fine serves no legitimate penological interest unless the\nsentencing judge inquires further into whether the defendant’s non-payment reflected an\nunwillingness rather than an inability to pay. 461 U.S. at 670-73. Bearden, then, concerns what\n\n\n\n401 U.S. at 397. The Supreme Court found that this situation fell within Williams’ holding because the “petitioner\nwas subjected to imprisonment solely because of his indigency.” Id. at 398. Mayer extended Griffin’s right of\nindigent defendants to an appellate record to cases where a defendant seeks to appeal a conviction that threatens\nfines, not imprisonment. 404 U.S. at 196. Lastly, in Bearden the Court held that Georgia’s law permitting probation\nto be revoked due to a probationer’s inability to pay a fine (without a finding of fault or inquiry into alternative\nforms of punishment) violated the Fourteenth Amendment under Griffin. 461 U.S. at 672-73.\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 15\n\n\nkind of process is due before a probationer is subject to confinement, not what kind of process is\ndue before a driver’s license is subject to suspension.\n\n Second, contrary to Plaintiffs’ claims, their challenge to Michigan’s driver’s-license-\nsuspension scheme is subject to rational basis review. We review equal protection challenges to\nlaws on grounds of “wealth-classification” only to see if they have a rational basis. Molina-\nCrespo v. U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 547 F.3d 651, 660 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing San Antonio Indep.\nSch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 29 (1973)) (“[W]ealth discrimination alone does not provide\nan adequate basis for invoking strict scrutiny.”). We explained in Johnson v. Bredesen that equal\nprotection challenges to laws that “neither implicate[] a fundamental right nor target a suspect\nclass” are subject to rational basis review. 624 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2010). Michigan’s\nchallenged statute is such a law.8\n\n Third, Michigan’s driver’s-license-suspension scheme passes rational basis review.\n“A ‘plaintiff may demonstrate that the government action lacks a rational basis either by\nnegativing every conceivable basis . . . which might support the government action, or by\ndemonstrating that the challenged government action was motivated by animus or ill-will.’”\n\n\n 8First, Plaintiffs’ claim does not implicate a fundamental right. Plaintiffs concede that we have held “there\nis no fundamental right to drive,” Duncan v. Cone, 2000 WL 1828089, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, 2000), but nonetheless\nclaim that Michigan’s suspension of their driver’s licenses implicates the fundamental right to travel because, for the\nindigent, especially where public transit is inadequate and distances between work, home, and market are great, an\ninability to drive “actually deters travel.” Plaintiffs’ argument is misguided. A right only counts as fundamental\nwhen it is “traditionally protected by our society” and “rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people.”\nMichael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 122-23 (1989) (citation omitted). A putative right of the indigent to drive—\neven in in a car-bound society where public transit may be woefully inadequate—is not a right rooted in the\ntraditions and conscience of our people.\n None of the authority cited by Plaintiffs indicates otherwise. The language “actually deters travel” comes\nfrom Attorney Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez, in which a plurality of the Court stated that “[a] state law implicates\nthe right to travel when it actually deters such travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses\nany classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right.” 476 U.S. 898, 903 (1986). Soto-Lopez is not\nitself instructive because the Court did not rely on the “actually deters travel” language in reaching its holding. The\nauthority relied upon by Soto-Lopez for the “actually deters travel” language was Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall.\n35 (1867), and Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). Neither case is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim. Shapiro\nconcerned state laws denying welfare assistance to residents who had not resided within their jurisdiction for at least\none year before applying for welfare assistance. Crandall dealt with a Nevada law that imposed a capitation tax on\nall passengers leaving or passing through the state.\n Second, Michigan’s law does not target a suspect class. “[A] class of less wealthy individuals is not a\nsuspect class warranting strict scrutiny review.” Molina-Crespo, 547 F.3d at 660 (citation omitted); see also\nJohnson, 624 F.3d at 746.\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 16\n\n\nJohnson, 624 F.3d at 747 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs do not argue the latter, so we are left with\nthe question of whether Plaintiffs have met their burden by showing that they are likely to\nsucceed in refuting “every conceivable basis” for Michigan’s driver’s-license-suspension\nscheme. To qualify as having a rational basis, the challenged law “need only be rationally\nrelated to legitimate government interests.” Id. at 746 (citation omitted).\n\n It is no struggle to conceive of the legitimate government interests pursued by a law\nsuspending driver’s licenses for nonpayment of court debt. The state has a general interest in\ncompliance with traffic laws. By imposing greater consequences for violating traffic laws, the\nstate increases deterrence for would-be violators. The state also has legitimate interests in\npromoting compliance with court orders and in collecting traffic debt. See id. at 747; see also\nBlackhawk Mining Co., Inc., v. Andrus, 711 F.2d 753, 757 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that a law\nrequiring prepayment of fines before an adequate hearing was justified because “the\ngovernment’s interest in prompt assessment and collection of civil penalties to ensure\ncompliance with the Act is substantial”).\n\n Plaintiffs maintain that suspending the driver’s license of an indigent license holder for\nnonpayment is patently irrational because doing so makes it harder for him to obtain and hold a\njob, which in turn makes him less likely to pay his court debt. Perhaps Plaintiffs are right that\nthe policy is unwise, even counterproductive. But under rational basis review we ask only\nwhether Michigan’s statutes are “rationally related to legitimate government interests.” Johnson,\n624 F.3d at 746. Michigan’s choice to wield the cudgel of driver’s-license suspension for\nnonpayment of court debt dramatically heightens the incentive to pay. Such a policy is rationally\nrelated to “the government’s interest in prompt assessment and collection of civil penalties.”\nBlackhawk Mining, 711 F.3d at 757. That this policy may in many cases make that—now more\nhighly incentivized—payment harder to accomplish does not show that the law lacks a rational\nbasis. “Misguided laws may nonetheless be constitutional. . . . Our task . . . is not to weigh this\nstatute’s effectiveness but its constitutionality.” James v. Strange, 407 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1972).\n\n Plaintiffs’ Extraordinary Debt Collection Claim. Lastly, Plaintiffs claim that Michigan’s\nlicense-suspension scheme violates their constitutional right against extraordinary debt collection\nunder James v. Strange. In Strange, the Supreme Court struck down a Kansas recoupment\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 17\n\n\nscheme that required indigent criminal defendants who were afforded counsel at public expense\nto repay those expenses. Id. at 129-31. The constitutional defect with this policy was that it\n“strip[ped] from indigent defendants the array of protective exemptions Kansas has erected for\nother civil judgment debtors, including restrictions on the amount of disposable earnings subject\nto garnishment, [etc.].” Id. at 135. The Court found this disparity not just when comparing\nindigent defendants to private debtors, but also when comparing indigent defendants to\nindividuals who owed debts to the state for public assistance. Id. at 136-37.\n\n Plaintiffs cite Strange for the proposition that Secretary Benson may not, consistent with\nthe Equal Protection Clause, “subject[] [Plaintiffs] to a significantly harsher collection method\nthan people who owe other types of debt.” Michigan law violates this principle, according to\nPlaintiffs, because their licenses are suspended due to their court debt, while “people with unpaid\nprivate debt do not face license suspension.”\n\n The district court correctly rejected this argument under Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40\n(1974). The problem that Strange identified, according to the Fuller Court, was “the elimination\nof exemptions normally available to judgment debtors.” Id. at 47. Here, there is no dispute that\nthe challenged Michigan statutes do not eliminate any such exemptions. Moreover, the State is\nuniquely empowered to grant, suspend, or reinstate driver’s licenses. Supreme Court precedent\ndoes not require anything like exact parity between the State and private creditors in this regard.\nThe Court in Strange said: “[w]e recognize, of course, that the State’s claim to reimbursement\nmay take precedence, under appropriate circumstances, over the claims of private creditors and\nthat enforcement procedures with respect to judgments need not be identical.” 407 U.S. at 138.\nIt would be passing strange indeed to interpret Strange as putting Michigan to the choice of\neither giving up its right to suspend the licenses of those with unpaid court debt or empowering\nprivate creditors to suspend the driver’s licenses of those indebted to them.\n\n In any event, laws challenged under Strange are subject to rational basis review.\nJohnson, 624 F.3d at 746. As established above, Michigan’s statutory scheme is rationally\nrelated to legitimate government interests.\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 18\n\n\n C.\n\n As we have held before “[b]ecause the district court committed an error of law—on the\nall-important likelihood-of-success factor, no less—it abused its discretion in granting a\npreliminary injunction.” Southern Glazer’s Distribs. of Ohio, LLC v. Great Lakes Brewing Co.,\n860 F.3d 844, 854 (6th Cir. 2017). The district court here erred in finding Plaintiffs likely to\nsucceed on the merits and therefore abused its discretion in granting Plaintiffs’ requested\npreliminary injunction. Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir. 2012) (“When a\nparty seeks a preliminary injunction on the basis of a potential constitutional violation, the\nlikelihood of success on the merits will often be the determinative factor.”).\n\n IV.\n\n We REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for proceedings\nconsistent with this opinion.\n\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 19\n\n\n _________________\n\n DISSENT\n _________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Adrian FOWLER; Kitia Harris, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Jocelyn BENSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in Her Official Capacity, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0086p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n ADRIAN FOWLER; KITIA HARRIS, on behalf of ┐\\n themselves and others similarly situated, │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, │\\n │\\n > Nos. 17-2504/18-1089\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n JOCELYN BENSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in her │\\n official capacity, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint.\\n No. 4:17-cv-11441—Linda V. Parker, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: October 3, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 8, 2019\\n\\n Before: BATCHELDER, DONALD, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: John G. Fedynsky, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL,\\nLansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Phil Telfeyan, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW,\\nWashington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: John G. Fedynsky, OFFICE OF THE\\nMICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Phil Telfeyan,\\nRebecca Ramaswamy, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW, Washington, D.C., John C. Philo,\\nMAURICE & JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE,\\nDetroit, Michigan, for Appellees.\\n\\n BATCHELDER, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which THAPAR, J., joined.\\nDONALD, J. (pp. 19–30), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. This is a case about the constitutionality of\\nMichigan’s driver’s-license suspension scheme, as applied to indigent drivers. Plaintiffs claim\\nthat the Michigan Secretary of State’s suspension of an indigent person’s driver’s license, on the\\nbasis of unpaid court debt, violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs contend that\\nsuspending the driver’s licenses of the poor is irrational because license suspension makes their\\ncommuting to and from work, for instance, much harder, and therefore reduces the chances that\\nthey will pay the debt. Whatever merit Plaintiffs’ argument might have as a matter of policy, its\\nmerit as a constitutional argument is diminished by the fact that our review of state legislative\\nchoices in this arena is markedly deferential. Because Plaintiffs have not shown that Michigan’s\\nlegal scheme is devoid of a rational basis, we decline Plaintiffs’ invitation to etch their preferred\\ndriver’s-license policy into constitutional bedrock.\\n\\n The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin Michigan’s Secretary of State from\\nenforcing Michigan’s driver’s-license suspension law. Because we find that the Secretary’s\\nenforcement of Michigan law does not run afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment, we REVERSE.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Adrian Fowler and Kitia Harris (“Plaintiffs”) are Michigan residents who claim that their\\ndriver’s licenses were suspended due to their inability to pay court debt.1 Fowler lived in\\nGeorgia between 2008 and 2012, where she acquired three tickets for civil infractions. She has\\nnot paid the court debt associated with those tickets. In 2012, after moving to Michigan, Fowler\\nattempted to renew her Michigan driver’s license, but was unable to do so because she had\\noutstanding court debts in Georgia. In 2013, Fowler was cited for driving with a suspended\\nlicense as well as speeding. Fowler claims that she went to the Ferndale, Michigan, court to\\nexplain that she could not pay the costs associated with her ticket—nearly $600—and was told\\n\\n 1We refer to court debt as a catch-all term for fines, court costs, fees, or assessments identified under\\nMichigan Compiled Laws § 257.321a.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 3\\n\\n\\nthat if she did not return in three weeks with full payment, a warrant would be issued for her\\narrest.\\n\\n Fowler works 20 hours a week making $8.90 per hour. She claims that she lacks the\\nresources to repay her court debts. Fowler claims that she is unable to find good-paying work as\\na result of her suspended license because many desirable jobs require a commute for which there\\nis no reliable public transit.\\n\\n Harris was ticketed in Michigan in 2016 for “impeding traffic.” She claims that the citing\\nofficer told her to call a particular phone number to determine the amount she owed for the\\nticket. Harris called the number (which put her in touch with the Michigan 43rd District Court-\\nFerndale Division) and was told that she owed $150. Because she could not make that payment,\\nHarris claims, she asked if she could be placed on a payment program, but was told that she\\ncould not, and that if she waited too long to pay off the ticket, her driver’s license would be\\nsuspended. Roughly a month after her phone call, Harris received a notice in the mail saying\\nthat her failure to pay the fine resulted in an increase in the amount she owed and that her\\ndriver’s license had been suspended. After this lawsuit was filed, Harris’ license was subject to\\nsuspension on three new grounds unrelated to her failure to pay the court debt stemming from\\nher impeding traffic charge.\\n\\n Michigan’s Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson (“Secretary Benson”),2 disputes Harris’\\naccount of her interaction with the Ferndale court. Secretary Benson claims that when Harris\\ncontacted the court in October 2016, she was given an extension to permit her to make a payment\\nby November 7, 2016, and was informed that a payment by that deadline would give her another\\nextension on the balance and keep her license from being suspended. But because Harris failed\\nto make a payment, the Ferndale court entered default judgment against her on November 14,\\n2016, and her license was suspended. Secretary Benson claims that, had Harris contacted the\\nFerndale court again, the court would have made a payment arrangement with her to avoid the\\nsuspension of her license. In support of this claim, Secretary Benson provided the affidavit of\\n\\n 2Thisappeal was filed when Ruth Johnson held the office of Secretary of State of the State of Michigan.\\nPursuant to FRAP 43(c)(2) Automatic Substitution of Officeholder, the court has substituted her successor, Jocelyn\\nBenson, as a party.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 4\\n\\n\\nLinda Carroll, the Court Administrator for the Ferndale court, who explained that “[a]nyone that\\ncalls in and makes any type of payment will always be granted an extension.” These repayment\\nplans can be started at as little as $1 per payment. Carroll also claims that individuals are\\ninformed that they can raise their inability to pay at a show-cause hearing.\\n\\n According to Harris, having her license suspended has been a burden, and she lacks the\\nresources to pay her court debt. Although she receives disability benefits, she claims that, after\\naccounting for living expenses, caring for her daughter, and paying off her medical debt, she\\nlacks sufficient resources to pay the amount she owes in order to have her suspended license\\nreinstated. Harris claims that, on account of her suspended license, among other consequences,\\nshe struggles to attend her regular medical appointments.\\n\\n Plaintiffs brought a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Secretary\\nBenson for unlawfully suspending their driver’s licenses. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,\\nclaiming that Secretary Benson’s suspension of the driver’s licenses of the indigent who are\\nunable to make payments violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the\\nConstitution. The district court found only one of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims likely to\\nsucceed on the merits—Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim that they were constitutionally\\nentitled to an “ability to pay” hearing prior to the deprivation of their driver’s licenses. The\\ncurrent version of the preliminary injunction order issued by the district court is as follows:\\n\\n Defendant is enjoined from suspending any further driver’s licenses of individuals\\n because of nonpayment of any fine, cost, fee or assessment under Michigan\\n Compiled Laws § 257.321a unless and until Defendant or another entity:\\n (1) offers drivers the option to request a hearing where they have the opportunity\\n to demonstrate their inability to pay a fine, cost, fee and/or assessment;\\n (2) provides a hearing when requested; (3) provides reasonable notice to drivers\\n of the hearing opportunity; and (4) institutes alternatives to full payment for those\\n unable to pay (e.g. realistic payment plans or volunteer service).\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Before reviewing the district court’s preliminary injunction order on the merits, we must\\naddress Secretary Benson’s four challenges to the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 5\\n\\n\\n Standing. We review de novo the district court’s conclusion regarding standing. Friends\\nof Tims Ford v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 585 F.3d 955, 966 (6th Cir. 2009). Secretary Benson\\nchallenges on two distinct grounds Plaintiffs’ standing to bring suit. First, Secretary Benson\\ndisputes Plaintiffs’ factual account of the process the Ferndale court afforded to Plaintiffs. The\\ndistrict court, following Gentek Building Products, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320\\n(6th Cir. 2007), correctly held that Secretary Benson’s factual dispute implicates the merits of\\nPlaintiffs’ claims, and therefore a factual inquiry into the allegations was inappropriate to\\ndetermine standing. Secretary Benson argues that Gentek is inapplicable because it concerned a\\nmotion to dismiss rather than what we have here—a standing challenge to a claim seeking\\ninjunctive relief. This is a distinction without a material difference as Gentek’s holding—“a\\ndistrict court engages in a factual inquiry regarding the complaint’s allegations only when the\\nfacts necessary to sustain jurisdiction do not implicate the merits of the plaintiff’s claim”—\\napplies equally in this situation. 491 F.3d at 330.\\n\\n Second, Secretary Benson argues that Plaintiffs’ claimed injury is not redressible. For\\nArticle III standing, the relief sought by a plaintiff “must provide redress for the injury.”\\nParsons v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 801 F.3d 701, 715 (6th Cir. 2015). The district court\\nrightly found this requirement met by Plaintiffs insofar as “a favorable decision would remedy\\nthe violation of Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights . . . [and] puts Plaintiffs one step closer\\nto regaining their driving privileges.” The district court acknowledged that “other impediments”\\nmay remain for Plaintiffs to regain their driver’s licenses but held that the elimination of one\\nsubstantial obstacle for Plaintiffs to regain their licenses constituted “substantial and meaningful\\nrelief” sufficient to render their claimed injury redressable. The district court’s conclusion was\\njustified under Supreme Court precedent. In Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan\\nHousing Development Corp., the Court held that even if “[a]n injunction would not . . . guarantee\\nthat” a plaintiff will achieve his desired final outcome, the injunction will have provided\\nconstitutionally sufficient redress if it “removed” a “barrier” to doing so. 429 U.S. 252, 261\\n(1977).\\n\\n Rooker-Feldman. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of\\nColumbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), hold that only the Supreme Court\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 6\\n\\n\\nmay review judgments entered by state courts in civil litigation. The doctrine, therefore, bars a\\nlower federal appellate court from reviewing a plaintiff’s claim when a state court’s judgment is\\nthe source of the plaintiff’s injury. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S.\\n280, 283-84 (2005).\\n\\n Secretary Benson argues that Plaintiffs are appealing the adverse judgment of Michigan\\ntrial courts, thereby contravening the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. But the Michigan statute is\\nclear—it is the Secretary who suspends licenses, even if the Secretary does so only after getting\\ncertain information from trial courts. Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.321a(2). As we explained in\\nMcCormick v. Braverman:\\n\\n The inquiry then is the source of the injury the plaintiff alleges in the federal\\n complaint. If the source of the injury is the state court decision, then the Rooker-\\n Feldman doctrine would prevent the district court from asserting jurisdiction.\\n If there is some other source of injury, such as a third-party’s actions, then the\\n plaintiff asserts an independent claim.\\n\\n451 F.3d 382, 393 (6th Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs’ suit seeks review of Secretary Benson’s\\nsuspension of their licenses regardless of the validity of any state court decision. The fact that\\nstate court decisions form part of the basis for the Secretary’s suspension action is immaterial.\\nId. at 394 (“To the extent that Defendants argue that these claims, even though they do not assert\\ninjury from the state court judgments, are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with those judgments so as\\nto fall within the reach of Rooker-Feldman, that argument must fail.”).\\n\\n Pullman and Younger. Secretary Benson argues that the district court should have\\nabstained from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under Railroad Commission of\\nTexas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), and Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).\\nPullman abstention instructs courts to avoid exercising jurisdiction in cases involving an\\nambiguous state statute that may be interpreted by state courts so as to eliminate, or at least alter\\nmaterially, the constitutional question raised in federal court. Jones v. Coleman, 848 F.3d 744,\\n749-50 (6th Cir. 2017). Secretary Benson argues that because Michigan law already requires the\\nprotection of federal constitutional rights when driver’s licenses are suspended, 3 state courts\\n\\n 3See Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.323(4) (“The court shall set aside the secretary of state’s determination only\\nif 1 or more of following apply: (a) In determining whether a petitioner is eligible for full driving privileges, the\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 7\\n\\n\\nmight interpret the challenged law in a way that would eliminate the constitutional question. But\\nthe Supreme Court has rejected applying Pullman abstention on those grounds. See Zwickler v.\\nKoota, 389 U.S. 241, 251 (1967) (explaining that Pullman “abstention cannot be ordered simply\\nto give state courts the first opportunity to vindicate the federal claim”).\\n\\n The Younger abstention doctrine, meanwhile, cautions federal courts against exercising\\njurisdiction in cases where they are asked to enjoin pending state proceedings. See New Orleans\\nPub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 364 (1989). But the district\\ncourt did no such thing. There are no ongoing state proceedings here, only hypothetical\\nproceedings that Secretary Benson claims Plaintiffs may pursue.\\n\\n Declaratory relief. Secretary Benson also claims that the district court abused its\\ndiscretion by holding that it had jurisdiction to decide Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief.\\nBut no declaratory judgment has been issued, and our holding on the merits below moots the\\npossibility that one will be issued.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Standard of Review. Having established that the district court properly exercised\\njurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim, we now review the merits of the district court’s decision\\ngranting a preliminarily injunction against Secretary Benson. While the party seeking a\\npreliminary injunction “is not required to prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction\\nhearing,” Cert. Rest. Dry Cleaning Network L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535, 542 (6th Cir.\\n2007) (citation omitted), it remains the case that preliminary injunctions are an “extraordinary\\nand drastic remedy,” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 (2008) (citation omitted).\\nA preliminary injunction “may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled\\nto such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).\\n\\n Courts determine whether a party moving for a preliminary injunction has made that\\nshowing by weighing whether the party (1) “establish[ed] that he is likely to succeed on the\\nmerits,” (2) “that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,”\\n\\npetitioner’s substantial rights have been prejudiced because the determination is any of the following: (i) In violation\\nof the Constitution of the United States.”).\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 8\\n\\n\\n(3) “that the balance of equities tips in his favor,” and (4) “that an injunction is in the public\\ninterest.” Id. at 20. However, in a case such as this, where “a party seeks a preliminary\\ninjunction on the basis of a potential constitutional violation, the likelihood of success on the\\nmerits will often be the determinative factor.” Bailey v. Callaghan, 715 F.3d 956, 958 (6th Cir.\\n2013) (citation omitted).\\n\\n We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to grant a preliminary\\ninjunction, but we review de novo conclusions of law—such as whether Plaintiffs are likely to\\nsucceed on the merits—that undergird the district court’s decision. See City of Pontiac Retired\\nEmps. Ass’n v. Schimmel, 751 F.3d 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2014) (en banc).\\n\\n A.\\n\\n We begin by reviewing the district court’s legal conclusion that Plaintiffs were likely to\\nsucceed on the merits of their procedural due process claim. The Fourteenth Amendment\\nprohibits “any State” from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process\\nof law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Plaintiffs claim that they have been deprived of a\\nproperty interest—their driver’s licenses—without due process of law. “Property interests, of\\ncourse, are not created by the Constitution. Rather they are created and their dimensions are\\ndefined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state\\nlaw—rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement\\nto those benefits.” Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).\\n\\n As a threshold matter we must acknowledge that Plaintiffs do not claim merely a general\\nproperty interest in a driver’s license; their specific claim is to a property interest, as indigent\\nindividuals, in maintaining their driver’s licenses when state law requires they be suspended due\\nto unpaid court debt. Identifying with specificity the nature of the claimed property interest\\nmakes a difference, as shown in Roth. There, a college professor’s one-year teaching contract\\nexpired and was not renewed. He claimed that the university’s failure to provide him with any\\nnotice or opportunity for a hearing concerning its decision not to retain him violated his right to\\nprocedural due process. The district court was persuaded. After finding that the professor’s\\ninterest in retaining his job constituted a property interest (created by the public university’s\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 9\\n\\n\\nemployment contract with the professor) within the contours of the Fourteenth Amendment’s\\nDue Process Clause, the district court deployed a balancing test weighing the relative interests of\\nthe professor and the university and concluded that the university should have provided notice\\nand an opportunity for a hearing before deciding not to retain the professor. Id. at 570. The\\nSupreme Court had previously held that a teaching position at a public university can constitute a\\nproperty interest “that is safeguarded by procedural due process.” Id. at 576 (collecting cases).\\nThe Roth Court, however, reversed the district court, explaining that the “[professor]’s ‘property’\\ninterest in employment at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh was created and defined by the\\nterms of his appointment.” Id. at 578. The terms of the professor’s contract with the state\\nuniversity were akin to a property interest created by a statutory entitlement. Id. Looking to\\nthose terms, the Court concluded they did not create a property interest protected by the\\nFourteenth Amendment:\\n\\n Those terms secured his interest in employment up to June 30, 1969. But the\\n important fact in this case is that they specifically provided that the respondent’s\\n employment was to terminate on June 30. They did not provide for contract\\n renewal absent ‘sufficient cause.’ Indeed, they made no provision for renewal\\n whatsoever. . . . In these circumstances, the respondent surely had an abstract\\n concern in being rehired, but he did not have a property interest sufficient to\\n require the University authorities to give him a hearing when they declined to\\n renew his contract of employment.\\n\\nId. at 578.\\n\\n Similarly here. Supreme Court case law recognizes a protectible property interest in a\\ndriver’s license under state law. Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10 n.7 (1979). And indeed,\\nMichigan’s license-suspension scheme recognizes such an interest by providing notice and an\\nopportunity to be heard if a license holder wants to challenge his underlying liability for a traffic\\nviolation or the misapplication of a fine. Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.321a(1)-(3). But the mere\\nfact that a driver has a property interest in his license (or an interest in continued employment as\\na professor) under the Fourteenth Amendment does not answer the more particular question of\\nwhether Michigan law creates the specific property entitlement Plaintiffs claim. Roth illustrates\\nthe point because its holding depended on examining the nature of the claimed property interest\\n(in continued employment) and seeing if the professor enjoyed an entitlement to that interest\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 10\\n\\n\\nunder the relevant law. In that case, the terms of the professor’s employment contract with the\\npublic university showed he lacked an entitlement to continued employment.\\n\\n State law was likewise dispositive in Bell v. Burson, where the Court held that because\\nGeorgia’s statutory scheme made “liability [for an accident] an important factor in the State’s\\ndetermination to deprive an individual of his licenses, the State may not, consistently with due\\nprocess, eliminate consideration of that factor in its prior hearing.” 402 U.S. 535, 541 (1971).\\nThe Court also made clear that if “fault and liability [were] irrelevant to [Georgia’s] statutory\\nscheme,” then the absence of any hearing on liability “would be appropriate to the nature of the\\ncase.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1\\n(1978) (holding that Tennessee law established a right not to have utility services terminated\\nexcept for good cause and therefore that the absence of any pre-termination opportunity for a\\nhearing violated procedural due process).\\n\\n Here, as in Roth, Bell, and Memphis Light, we must ask whether state law establishes the\\nentitlement that Plaintiffs’ claim in this case—a right of the indigent, who cannot pay court debt,\\nto be exempt from driver’s-license suspension on the basis of unpaid court debt.4 The answer is\\nit has not.\\n\\n Neither the district court nor Plaintiffs identify any legal authority showing that Michigan\\nlaw directs anyone to consider a license holder’s indigency as part of the process of suspending\\nhis driver’s license for failure to pay court debt. On the contrary, Plaintiffs’ central argument\\nthroughout this litigation has been that “[Michigan] law—enforced by the Secretary—that\\nmandates suspensions for failure to pay court debt with no exception for indigence or non-\\nwillfulness.” Plaintiffs’ whole point is that Michigan’s statutory scheme does not create such an\\nentitlement.\\n\\n And that reading of Michigan law appears to be right. Michigan’s statutory scheme for\\nlicense suspension makes no reference to the indigency status of those whose licenses are subject\\nto suspension. See e.g., Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.321a(2) (“If the person fails to appear or fails\\n\\n 4We hold aside, for the moment, the question of whether such an entitlement can be found in the Equal\\nProtection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which we address in Part III.B.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 11\\n\\n\\nto comply with the order or judgment within the 14-day period, the court shall, within 14 days,\\ninform the secretary of state, who shall immediately suspend the license of the person.”).5\\n\\n Because Plaintiffs do not claim a legal entitlement that falls within the Fourteenth\\nAmendment’s protection of property, there is no need to proceed, as the district court did, to the\\nbalancing test laid out in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). See Roth, 408 U.S. at 570-\\n71 (“[A] weighing process has long been a part of any determination of the form of hearing\\nrequired in particular situations by procedural due process. But, to determine whether due\\n\\n\\n 5Secretary Benson’s approach to this litigation, meanwhile, muddies the waters. At first glance, one might\\nthink that Secretary Benson has in fact conceded that a pre-deprivation indigency hearing is currently required under\\nstate law. A more discerning look reveals that she made no such claim.\\n Secretary Benson argues that Plaintiffs neglected to pursue an “ability to pay” hearing at the Ferndale court\\nthat ultimately sent the information to Secretary Benson that triggered their license suspension. Secretary Benson\\nmaintains that Plaintiffs have not shown that the Ferndale court fails to provide what Plaintiffs request—“extensions\\nfor defendants who are unable to pay the full amount.” As a consequence, says Secretary Benson, Plaintiffs are\\nbarred from pursuing their procedural due process claim because they never took advantage of the process provided.\\n This argument does not concede that Michigan law clearly entitles Plaintiffs to an indigency exception.\\nSecretary Benson’s account of the process Plaintiffs failed to pursue relies on an affidavit from Linda Carroll, the\\nCourt Administrator for the 43rd District Court-Ferndale Division. The Carroll affidavit says nothing about\\nMichigan law, and more specifically it says nothing about the Michigan laws that the district court enjoined\\nSecretary Benson from enforcing. Instead, the Carroll affidavit says that there are court rules or policies with\\nprovisions “for night court (to allow an opportunity to appear in court without conflicting with work schedules),\\nextensions on payment requirements, ability to pay hearings, payment plans, as well as alternative payment options\\nwhich include community service.”\\n But there are two problems with the Carroll affidavit with respect to Plaintiffs’ procedural due process\\nclaim. First, even if the process accounted for in Carroll’s affidavit can serve as a body of law creating a legal\\nentitlement to an “ability to pay” hearing, Plaintiffs’ argument runs into a still more fundamental problem—their suit\\nnames the wrong party. Any injunction aimed at getting adequate notice of an available “ability to pay” hearing\\nwould need to be directed at either the 43rd District Court or the Clerk’s office. Whether such a claim would be\\nlikely to succeed is another matter for another day.\\n Second, it is doubtful whether the process described in the affidavit amounts to a legal entitlement of any\\nsort. The affidavit does not describe or cite the “provisions” to which it refers. When the affidavit refers to the\\nspecific “ability to pay” procedures of the court, they are described in discretionary terms as things that “the Clerk’s\\noffice will” do. Moreover, it appears from the Carroll affidavit that the procedures the Clerk makes available may be\\nin tension with other court rules:\\n Although court rules generally state that fees, costs and other financial obligations imposed by the\\n court must be paid at the time of assessment, for individuals present in court, the Clerk’s office\\n will: [lists relevant procedures].\\n Whatever the Carroll affidavit shows vis-à-vis the local rules or office practices of the 43rd District Court-\\nFerndale Division, it does not show that Michigan law establishes a right to an indigency exception from license\\nsuspension. The discretionary actions of a court administrator, or even a state judge, in adopting an administrative\\nprocess, do not amount to the statutory entitlement the Supreme Court has acknowledged as a legitimate basis for a\\nprocedural due process claim. Upon so flimsy a basis as that we could not conclude that “looking to the operation of\\nthe State’s statutory scheme, it is clear that [indigency] . . . plays a crucial role . . . .” Bell, 402 U.S. at 541.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 12\\n\\n\\nprocess requirements apply in the first place, we must look not to the ‘weight’ but to the nature\\nof the interest at stake.”) (footnote and citation omitted). Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim\\nfails.\\n\\n The same result would hold true even if we were to proceed to the Mathews analysis, as\\nthe dissent argues we should. The reason is simple. If Plaintiffs’ indigency is not relevant to the\\nstate’s underlying decision to suspend their licenses, then giving them a hearing—or any other\\nprocedural opportunity—where they can raise their indigency would be pointless. Such a\\nprocedure would do nothing to prevent the “the risk of erroneous deprivation.” Mathews v.\\nEldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). The Court’s driver’s-license-due-process cases recognize\\nthis basic truth. For instance, as explained above, Bell’s conclusion specifically hinged on\\nwhether state law made the factor at issue relevant to the license-suspension decision. 402 U.S.\\nat 541. Likewise, Dixon rejected a due process challenge because the plaintiff conceded that he\\nhad no substantive basis to contest the license-suspension decision. Dixon v. Lowe, 431 U.S.\\n105, 113–14 (1977). That concession meant plaintiff’s requested hearing “might make [him]\\nfeel that he has received more personal attention, but it would not serve to protect any\\nsubstantive rights.” Id. at 114. The Due Process Clause “does not protect procedure for\\nprocedure’s sake.” Rector v. City and County of Denver, 348 F.3d 935, 943-44 (10th Cir. 2003).\\nHere, Plaintiffs’ requested indigency hearing would be exactly that, absent a showing that\\nindigency is relevant to the license-suspension decision under Michigan law.\\n\\n The dissent does not argue otherwise. Instead, the dissent claims that indigency is\\nrelevant under Michigan law. But as explained above, neither the dissent nor any party cites to\\nanything in Michigan law establishing an indigency exception, and in fact the Plaintiffs\\nthemselves argue that Michigan law does not have one. See supra note 5 and accompanying text.\\nOf course, if Michigan law did have an indigency exception—for instance, if Michigan law\\nprohibited the Secretary from suspending the driver’s license of an indigent person—this case\\nwould look very different. Under that scenario, a suspension procedure that wholly failed to\\nconsider a person’s indigency would violate due process. But that is not the case before us.\\nInstead, the record does not establish this critical point, and therefore we cannot justify the\\n“extraordinary and drastic remedy” of a preliminary injunction. Munaf, 553 U.S. at 689; see also\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 13\\n\\n\\nNorth Carolina v. Covington, 137 S. Ct. 1624, 1626 (2017). Plaintiffs have not shown that their\\nprocedural due process claim is likely to succeed on the merits.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Plaintiffs have two more arrows in their quiver, both aimed at showing that Michigan’s\\ndriver’s-license-suspension scheme violates their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal\\nprotection of the law. They argue that Secretary Benson’s suspension of their licenses\\nconstitutes impermissible wealth discrimination under Griffin v. Illinois and its progeny. They\\nalso claim a violation of their rights against extraordinary debt collection, as established under\\nJames v. Strange. The district court found Plaintiffs’ arguments unlikely to succeed. As do we.6\\n\\n The Griffin Framework. Plaintiffs argue that Michigan’s driver’s-license-suspension\\nscheme violates the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted under Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12\\n(1956), and the cases following it: Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), Tate v. Short,\\n401 U.S. 395 (1971), Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971), and Bearden v. Georgia,\\n461 U.S. 660 (1983). Plaintiffs argue that, under these cases, the challenged law is subject to\\nsomething more than rational basis review. Alternatively, they argue that Michigan’s laws\\ncannot survive even rational basis review as they are manifestly “irrational and\\ncounterproductive when applied to indigent drivers.” Both arguments are unavailing.\\n\\n First, the district court correctly distinguished the Griffin cases from Plaintiffs’ claims\\nbecause none of the Griffin cases concerned a property interest. Those cases dealt with basic\\nfeatures of the criminal justice system—imprisonment, probation, and appeals.7 Property\\n\\n 6If found likely to succeed on these claims, Plaintiffs would have resuscitated the district court’s\\nconclusion on the procedural due process claim because they would have identified a legal entitlement in federal\\nconstitutional law that triggers the Due Process Clause. Of course, they would still have to show that the procedures\\nin place are constitutionally inadequate, an issue we do not address.\\n 7Griffin,through divided opinions, held that Illinois violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process\\nClauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to furnish trial transcripts to indigent criminal defendants who\\nneeded transcripts in order to file an appeal. Justice Black’s opinion explained that by doing so, Illinois “den[ied]\\nadequate appellate review to the poor while granting such review to all others.” 351 U.S. at 13 (plurality).\\nWilliams, in turn, relied on Griffin in concluding that a court could not increase an indigent defendant’s\\nimprisonment past her maximum sentence solely on the grounds that the defendant could not afford to pay fines\\nstemming from the original conviction. 399 U.S. at 242. In Tate, the Supreme Court decided a case concerning a\\ndebtor who had failed to pay fines accumulated from traffic offenses and had, as a consequence, been committed by\\na court to a municipal farm where he would work “to satisfy the fines at the rate of five dollars for each day.”\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 14\\n\\n\\ninterests are not due the same degree of legal protection as the fundamental liberty interests\\nimplicated in the Griffin line of cases. As a judge from one of our sister circuits said well:\\n\\n The Due Process Clause applies to both liberty and property. When there is a\\n distinction, property receives the lesser protection. The burden at a criminal trial,\\n where liberty is at issue, is “beyond a reasonable doubt”; the burden at a civil trial\\n involving property, by contrast, is “preponderance of the evidence.” In a criminal\\n trial that can end in a sentence of imprisonment, the defendant is entitled to\\n counsel at public expense if he cannot afford a lawyer; in a civil trial, by contrast,\\n a defendant who cannot afford a lawyer must represent himself. The list could be\\n extended, but the point has been made. Liberty receives the greater protection.\\n\\nMarkadonatos v. Vill. of Woodridge, 760 F.3d 545, 554 (7th Cir. 2014) (Easterbrook, J.,\\nconcurring).\\n\\n Cases cited by Plaintiffs do not show otherwise. True, the Supreme Court held in Mayer\\nthat an indigent defendant seeking to appeal a nonfelony conviction that did not entail\\nimprisonment was as entitled to access his trial transcripts as an indigent defendant seeking to\\nappeal a conviction punishable by imprisonment. 404 U.S. at 195-98. That holding does not,\\nhowever, undermine the critical distinction between liberty and property interests. An indigent\\ndefendant’s interest in accessing an appeal to challenge a finding of his criminal liability is not\\nthe same as an indigent person’s property interest in a driver’s license.\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ reliance on Bearden is likewise misplaced. They cite Bearden for the\\nproposition that Secretary Benson’s refusal to exempt those who are willing but unable to pay\\nviolates “the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Bearden Court,\\nhowever, merely held that the automatic revocation of a defendant’s probation (thereby sending\\nhim to jail) because of non-payment of a fine serves no legitimate penological interest unless the\\nsentencing judge inquires further into whether the defendant’s non-payment reflected an\\nunwillingness rather than an inability to pay. 461 U.S. at 670-73. Bearden, then, concerns what\\n\\n\\n\\n401 U.S. at 397. The Supreme Court found that this situation fell within Williams’ holding because the “petitioner\\nwas subjected to imprisonment solely because of his indigency.” Id. at 398. Mayer extended Griffin’s right of\\nindigent defendants to an appellate record to cases where a defendant seeks to appeal a conviction that threatens\\nfines, not imprisonment. 404 U.S. at 196. Lastly, in Bearden the Court held that Georgia’s law permitting probation\\nto be revoked due to a probationer’s inability to pay a fine (without a finding of fault or inquiry into alternative\\nforms of punishment) violated the Fourteenth Amendment under Griffin. 461 U.S. at 672-73.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 15\\n\\n\\nkind of process is due before a probationer is subject to confinement, not what kind of process is\\ndue before a driver’s license is subject to suspension.\\n\\n Second, contrary to Plaintiffs’ claims, their challenge to Michigan’s driver’s-license-\\nsuspension scheme is subject to rational basis review. We review equal protection challenges to\\nlaws on grounds of “wealth-classification” only to see if they have a rational basis. Molina-\\nCrespo v. U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 547 F.3d 651, 660 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing San Antonio Indep.\\nSch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 29 (1973)) (“[W]ealth discrimination alone does not provide\\nan adequate basis for invoking strict scrutiny.”). We explained in Johnson v. Bredesen that equal\\nprotection challenges to laws that “neither implicate[] a fundamental right nor target a suspect\\nclass” are subject to rational basis review. 624 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2010). Michigan’s\\nchallenged statute is such a law.8\\n\\n Third, Michigan’s driver’s-license-suspension scheme passes rational basis review.\\n“A ‘plaintiff may demonstrate that the government action lacks a rational basis either by\\nnegativing every conceivable basis . . . which might support the government action, or by\\ndemonstrating that the challenged government action was motivated by animus or ill-will.’”\\n\\n\\n 8First, Plaintiffs’ claim does not implicate a fundamental right. Plaintiffs concede that we have held “there\\nis no fundamental right to drive,” Duncan v. Cone, 2000 WL 1828089, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, 2000), but nonetheless\\nclaim that Michigan’s suspension of their driver’s licenses implicates the fundamental right to travel because, for the\\nindigent, especially where public transit is inadequate and distances between work, home, and market are great, an\\ninability to drive “actually deters travel.” Plaintiffs’ argument is misguided. A right only counts as fundamental\\nwhen it is “traditionally protected by our society” and “rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people.”\\nMichael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 122-23 (1989) (citation omitted). A putative right of the indigent to drive—\\neven in in a car-bound society where public transit may be woefully inadequate—is not a right rooted in the\\ntraditions and conscience of our people.\\n None of the authority cited by Plaintiffs indicates otherwise. The language “actually deters travel” comes\\nfrom Attorney Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez, in which a plurality of the Court stated that “[a] state law implicates\\nthe right to travel when it actually deters such travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses\\nany classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right.” 476 U.S. 898, 903 (1986). Soto-Lopez is not\\nitself instructive because the Court did not rely on the “actually deters travel” language in reaching its holding. The\\nauthority relied upon by Soto-Lopez for the “actually deters travel” language was Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall.\\n35 (1867), and Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). Neither case is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim. Shapiro\\nconcerned state laws denying welfare assistance to residents who had not resided within their jurisdiction for at least\\none year before applying for welfare assistance. Crandall dealt with a Nevada law that imposed a capitation tax on\\nall passengers leaving or passing through the state.\\n Second, Michigan’s law does not target a suspect class. “[A] class of less wealthy individuals is not a\\nsuspect class warranting strict scrutiny review.” Molina-Crespo, 547 F.3d at 660 (citation omitted); see also\\nJohnson, 624 F.3d at 746.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 16\\n\\n\\nJohnson, 624 F.3d at 747 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs do not argue the latter, so we are left with\\nthe question of whether Plaintiffs have met their burden by showing that they are likely to\\nsucceed in refuting “every conceivable basis” for Michigan’s driver’s-license-suspension\\nscheme. To qualify as having a rational basis, the challenged law “need only be rationally\\nrelated to legitimate government interests.” Id. at 746 (citation omitted).\\n\\n It is no struggle to conceive of the legitimate government interests pursued by a law\\nsuspending driver’s licenses for nonpayment of court debt. The state has a general interest in\\ncompliance with traffic laws. By imposing greater consequences for violating traffic laws, the\\nstate increases deterrence for would-be violators. The state also has legitimate interests in\\npromoting compliance with court orders and in collecting traffic debt. See id. at 747; see also\\nBlackhawk Mining Co., Inc., v. Andrus, 711 F.2d 753, 757 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that a law\\nrequiring prepayment of fines before an adequate hearing was justified because “the\\ngovernment’s interest in prompt assessment and collection of civil penalties to ensure\\ncompliance with the Act is substantial”).\\n\\n Plaintiffs maintain that suspending the driver’s license of an indigent license holder for\\nnonpayment is patently irrational because doing so makes it harder for him to obtain and hold a\\njob, which in turn makes him less likely to pay his court debt. Perhaps Plaintiffs are right that\\nthe policy is unwise, even counterproductive. But under rational basis review we ask only\\nwhether Michigan’s statutes are “rationally related to legitimate government interests.” Johnson,\\n624 F.3d at 746. Michigan’s choice to wield the cudgel of driver’s-license suspension for\\nnonpayment of court debt dramatically heightens the incentive to pay. Such a policy is rationally\\nrelated to “the government’s interest in prompt assessment and collection of civil penalties.”\\nBlackhawk Mining, 711 F.3d at 757. That this policy may in many cases make that—now more\\nhighly incentivized—payment harder to accomplish does not show that the law lacks a rational\\nbasis. “Misguided laws may nonetheless be constitutional. . . . Our task . . . is not to weigh this\\nstatute’s effectiveness but its constitutionality.” James v. Strange, 407 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1972).\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ Extraordinary Debt Collection Claim. Lastly, Plaintiffs claim that Michigan’s\\nlicense-suspension scheme violates their constitutional right against extraordinary debt collection\\nunder James v. Strange. In Strange, the Supreme Court struck down a Kansas recoupment\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 17\\n\\n\\nscheme that required indigent criminal defendants who were afforded counsel at public expense\\nto repay those expenses. Id. at 129-31. The constitutional defect with this policy was that it\\n“strip[ped] from indigent defendants the array of protective exemptions Kansas has erected for\\nother civil judgment debtors, including restrictions on the amount of disposable earnings subject\\nto garnishment, [etc.].” Id. at 135. The Court found this disparity not just when comparing\\nindigent defendants to private debtors, but also when comparing indigent defendants to\\nindividuals who owed debts to the state for public assistance. Id. at 136-37.\\n\\n Plaintiffs cite Strange for the proposition that Secretary Benson may not, consistent with\\nthe Equal Protection Clause, “subject[] [Plaintiffs] to a significantly harsher collection method\\nthan people who owe other types of debt.” Michigan law violates this principle, according to\\nPlaintiffs, because their licenses are suspended due to their court debt, while “people with unpaid\\nprivate debt do not face license suspension.”\\n\\n The district court correctly rejected this argument under Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40\\n(1974). The problem that Strange identified, according to the Fuller Court, was “the elimination\\nof exemptions normally available to judgment debtors.” Id. at 47. Here, there is no dispute that\\nthe challenged Michigan statutes do not eliminate any such exemptions. Moreover, the State is\\nuniquely empowered to grant, suspend, or reinstate driver’s licenses. Supreme Court precedent\\ndoes not require anything like exact parity between the State and private creditors in this regard.\\nThe Court in Strange said: “[w]e recognize, of course, that the State’s claim to reimbursement\\nmay take precedence, under appropriate circumstances, over the claims of private creditors and\\nthat enforcement procedures with respect to judgments need not be identical.” 407 U.S. at 138.\\nIt would be passing strange indeed to interpret Strange as putting Michigan to the choice of\\neither giving up its right to suspend the licenses of those with unpaid court debt or empowering\\nprivate creditors to suspend the driver’s licenses of those indebted to them.\\n\\n In any event, laws challenged under Strange are subject to rational basis review.\\nJohnson, 624 F.3d at 746. As established above, Michigan’s statutory scheme is rationally\\nrelated to legitimate government interests.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 18\\n\\n\\n C.\\n\\n As we have held before “[b]ecause the district court committed an error of law—on the\\nall-important likelihood-of-success factor, no less—it abused its discretion in granting a\\npreliminary injunction.” Southern Glazer’s Distribs. of Ohio, LLC v. Great Lakes Brewing Co.,\\n860 F.3d 844, 854 (6th Cir. 2017). The district court here erred in finding Plaintiffs likely to\\nsucceed on the merits and therefore abused its discretion in granting Plaintiffs’ requested\\npreliminary injunction. Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir. 2012) (“When a\\nparty seeks a preliminary injunction on the basis of a potential constitutional violation, the\\nlikelihood of success on the merits will often be the determinative factor.”).\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n We REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for proceedings\\nconsistent with this opinion.\\n\\n Nos. 17-2504/18-1089 Fowler, et al. v. Benson Page 19\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n DISSENT\\n _________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2074,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4619178,"string":"4,619,178"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF SEBREE, KENTUCKY, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Sebree"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-14"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-5647"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Cole, Batchelder, Donald\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"COLE, Chief Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0088p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5647\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n CITY OF SEBREE, KENTUCKY, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro.\\n No. 4:17-cv-00137—Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: January 30, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 14, 2019\\n\\n Before: COLE, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and DONALD, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Jennifer Parker Andrews, KING, DEEP & BRANAMAN, Henderson, Kentucky,\\nfor Appellant. Andrew E. Tauber, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.\\nON BRIEF: Jennifer Parker Andrews, H. Randall Redding, KING, DEEP & BRANAMAN,\\nHenderson, Kentucky, for Appellant. Andrew E. Tauber, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington,\\nD.C., Christopher J. Ferro, MAYER BROWN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Rod Payne, BOEHL\\nSTOPHER & GRAVES LLP, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n COLE, Chief Judge. In 1966, the City of Sebree, Kentucky (the “City”) enacted an\\nordinance requiring CSX Transportation, Inc.’s (“CSX”) predecessor to obtain approval from\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 2\\n\\n\\ncity council before commencing any maintenance or construction project that would result in any\\nchange in grade at any of the six railroad crossings in Sebree. After a dispute surrounding the\\nordinance in 1979, the predecessor railroad company and the City entered into a settlement\\nagreement whereby the rail company agreed not to raise the height of one crossing by more than\\n0.4 feet and not to raise the height of another crossing at all. In 2017, CSX notified the City of\\nits intent to perform maintenance that would result in raising four of the crossings, which led to\\nthe current lawsuit. CSX sought, and the district court granted, a permanent injunction\\nprohibiting the City from enforcing the ordinance or settlement agreement. Because we agree\\nwith the district court that both the ordinance and settlement agreement are preempted by federal\\nrailroad statutes, we affirm.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n An active railroad line runs through Sebree, a 1.6 square mile city in Webster County,\\nKentucky. The rail line, operated by CSX, crosses six streets in Sebree: Jefferson, Webster,\\nMain, Dixon, Mill, and Sebree Springs. Each of the crossings is a “peaked” or “humped”\\ncrossing, meaning that there is a change in grade from the street to the top of the rails with the\\nrailway tracks sitting higher than the road. The height of the crossings has long been a source of\\nconcern for the City. According to the City, the elevation of the crossings creates two primary\\nsafety concerns: (1) line of sight obstructions for vehicles and pedestrians crossing the tracks,\\nand (2) a risk that low-profile vehicles and vehicles with long wheel bases, such as trucks and\\nbuses, will become stuck or disabled. Understandably, the City does not want the height of the\\ncrossings to be raised any further.\\n\\n On May 11, 1966, the City enacted an Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) requiring Louisville\\nand Nashville Railroad (“L&N”)—CSX’s predecessor in interest—to obtain prior approval from\\nthe city council before commencing maintenance or construction that would result in any change\\nin grade at any of the crossings in Sebree. The Ordinance imposes a fine of not less than $50.00\\nper day until the change is corrected.\\n\\n Despite the Ordinance, L&N raised the crossings at Jefferson and Webster in 1978\\nwithout seeking prior approval from the City. The City informed L&N of its intent to enforce\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 3\\n\\n\\nthe Ordinance if L&N attempted to raise the crossings at Main and Dixon. L&N thereafter filed\\na lawsuit in the Webster County Circuit Court seeking to invalidate the Ordinance and requesting\\nan injunction preventing the City from enforcing it. The circuit court issued an order in July of\\n1979, denying L&N’s request for an injunction and temporarily enjoining L&N from making any\\nrepairs that would raise the elevation of the Main Street or Dixon Street crossings without the\\napproval of Sebree’s city council. In November 1979, L&N and the City resolved the litigation\\nby entering an agreed order of dismissal (the “Agreed Order”) that removed the temporary\\ninjunction against L&N. Pursuant to the Agreed Order, L&N agreed not to raise the level of the\\ntracks at Main Street more than 0.4 feet above its then-current level, and not to raise the level of\\nthe tracks at Dixon Street at all.\\n\\n Years later, CSX, as L&N’s successor in interest, determined that it needed to conduct\\nmaintenance on the tracks in Sebree to correct the problem of fouled ballast. Ballast refers to the\\ncrushed rock used to support tracks and allow proper drainage. The ballast becomes fouled when\\nsmaller particles clog the space between the crushed rock, reducing the ability of water to drain\\nfreely. There are at least two maintenance methods that can be utilized to correct fouled ballast.\\nOne method, surfacing, entails lifting the track, which breaks the bottom of the ties—the\\nsupports to which railroad rails are fastened—free from the compacted fouled ballast, and then\\nraising the track to the desired height and forcing ballast back underneath. Another method is\\nundercutting, which is the removal of all ballast between the ties from approximately eight\\ninches under the bottom of the ties. Surfacing results in raising the height of the crossings, but\\nundercutting can be done while maintaining the height of the grade, or even lowering it.\\n\\n In 2013, CSX began undertaking maintenance work that would result in an increase in\\nthe height of four of the railroad crossings in Sebree. Sebree police “arrived on the scene and\\nthreat[ened] CSX[] personnel with arrest[,]” and CSX was thus “not able to conduct the\\nproposed maintenance that would result in raising the tracks.” (Compl., R. 1, PageID 6.) In\\nAugust 2017, CSX informed the City of its intent to perform track maintenance that would result\\nin raising the crossings at Dixon, Main, Webster, and Jefferson Streets by two to three inches.\\nCSX also informed the City of its intent to perform additional work at the Jefferson Street\\ncrossing, which would not raise the grade of the crossing. In October 2017, the Sebree city\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 4\\n\\n\\ncouncil met to discuss CSX’s proposed track maintenance and voted 6-0 to deny CSX’s request\\nto perform any of the proposed maintenance work.\\n\\n After the request to perform maintenance was denied, CSX brought this action for\\ninjunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. CSX\\nsought a preliminary injunction, seeking to prohibit the City from enforcing the Ordinance or the\\nAgreed Order, or otherwise interfering with CSX’s railroad operations. The district court\\ncombined the hearing on the preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits, and the proceeding\\nwas held on March 1, 2018.\\n\\n On May 24, 2018, the district court issued an opinion, holding that the Ordinance was\\npreempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (“Termination Act”), and\\nthe Agreed Order was void as a matter of public policy. The court entered judgment in favor of\\nCSX and permanently enjoined the City from “any enforcement of either the 1966 Ordinance or\\n1979 Agreed Order or otherwise undertaking any action which would seek to prevent CSX from\\nraising its tracks for maintenance purposes within the City of Sebree.” (J., R. 26, PageID 641.)\\n\\n The City timely appealed.\\n\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n\\n A. Standard of Review\\n\\n In reviewing a decision to grant or deny a motion for a permanent injunction, “we employ\\nseveral different standards of review. ‘Factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous\\nstandard, legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, and the scope of injunctive relief is reviewed\\nfor an abuse of discretion.’” Sec’y of Labor, U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. 3Re.com, Inc., 317 F.3d 534,\\n537 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting S. Cent. Power Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union\\n2359, 186 F.3d 733, 737 (6th Cir. 1999)). A district court’s determination of federal preemption\\nis reviewed de novo. Adrian & Blissfield R.R. Co. v. Vill. of Blissfield, 550 F.3d 533, 537 (6th\\nCir. 2008).\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 5\\n\\n\\n B. Ordinance\\n\\n We must first determine whether the Ordinance is preempted by federal laws governing\\nrailroad transportation. “Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law preempts\\nconflicting state law.” Tyrrell v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 248 F.3d 517, 522 (6th Cir. 2001).\\nGenerally, “there is a presumption against the supplanting of historic state police powers” unless\\npreemption is the “clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Id. (citation and internal quotation\\nmarks omitted). Congress’s intent can be found in explicit statutory language or a statute’s\\nstructure and purpose. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 (1992). When a\\nstatute contains an explicit preemption clause, “the task of statutory construction must in the first\\ninstance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of\\nCongress’[s] pre-emptive intent.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993).\\nThe “ultimate touchstone” of a preemption analysis, however, is “Congress’s purpose.” Tyrrell,\\n248 F.3d at 522 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\\n Two federal statutes that govern the railroad industry possibly preempt the Ordinance:\\n(1) the Termination Act; and (2) the Federal Railroad Safety Act (“FRSA”). We begin, as the\\ndistrict court did, with an analysis of whether the Ordinance is preempted under the Termination\\nAct. Congress enacted the Termination Act in 1995, establishing the Surface Transportation\\nBoard (“STB”) and giving the STB exclusive jurisdiction over certain aspects of railroad\\ntransportation. 49 U.S.C. §§ 1301, 10501(b). Specifically, the Termination Act provides that:\\n\\n The jurisdiction of the [STB] over—\\n (1) transportation by rail carriers, and the remedies provided in this part with\\n respect to rates, classifications, rules (including car service, interchange,\\n and other operating rules), practices, routes, services, and facilities of such\\n carriers; and\\n (2) the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance\\n of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, or facilities, even if the\\n tracks are located, or intended to be located, entirely in one State,\\n is exclusive.\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 6\\n\\n\\n49 U.S.C. § 10501(b). “Transportation” is broadly defined to include all equipment and services\\nrelated to the movement of property by rail. 49 U.S.C. § 10102(9). The Termination Act further\\nincludes an express preemption provision, stating:\\n\\n Except as otherwise provided in this part, the remedies provided under this part\\n with respect to regulation of rail transportation are exclusive and preempt the\\n remedies provided under Federal or State law.\\n\\n49 U.S.C. § 10501(b).\\n\\n “‘It is difficult to imagine a broader statement of Congress’[s] intent to preempt state\\nregulatory authority over railroad operations.’” CSX Transp., Inc., Fin. Docket No. 34662, 2005\\nWL 1024490, at *2 (S.T.B. May 3, 2005) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm’n,\\n944 F. Supp. 1573, 1581 (N.D. Ga. 1996)). “The Termination Act therefore ‘preempts all state\\nlaws that may reasonably be said to have the effect of managing or governing rail transportation,\\nwhile permitting the continued application of laws having a more remote or incidental effect on\\nrail transportation.’” Blissfield, 550 F.3d at 539 (quoting N.Y. Susquehanna & W. Ry. Corp. v.\\nJackson, 500 F.3d 238, 252 (3d Cir. 2007)). While states retain their general police powers,\\n“‘the Federal scheme of economic regulation and deregulation is intended to address and\\nencompass all such regulation and to be completely exclusive.’” Id. (quoting PCI Transp., Inc.\\nv. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., 418 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2005)).\\n\\n We have adopted the STB’s “‘comprehensive test for determining the extent to which a\\nparticular state action or remedy is preempted by § 10501(b).’” Id. (quoting New Orleans &\\nGulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois, 533 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2008)). Under that test, there are two\\ntypes of preempted state actions or regulations: those that are “categorically preempted” and\\nthose that are “preempted as applied.” Id. at 540. A state regulation is categorically or facially\\npreempted if it “would directly conflict with exclusive federal regulation of railroads.” Id.\\n(quoting Barrois, 533 F.3d at 332). Even if a state or local action is not categorically preempted,\\nit may be preempted as applied. The as-applied analysis requires an “‘assessment of whether\\nthat action would have the effect of preventing or unreasonably interfering with railroad\\ntransportation.’” Id. (quoting Barrois, 533 F.3d at 332).\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 7\\n\\n\\n CSX argues that the Ordinance is categorically preempted, while the City urges us to\\nconduct only the as-applied preemption analysis. Even under the as-applied analysis, we hold\\nthat the Ordinance is preempted by the Termination Act.\\n\\n A regulation is permissible as applied so long as “(1) it is not unreasonably burdensome,\\nand (2) it does not discriminate against railroads.” Id. at 541 (quoting Jackson, 500 F.3d at 253).\\nThe “touchstone” of the as-applied analysis “is whether the state regulation imposes an\\nunreasonable burden on railroading.” Id. (quoting Jackson, 500 F.3d at 253). In terms of the\\nunreasonably-burdensome prong, “‘the substance of the regulation must not be so draconian that\\nit prevents the railroad from carrying out its business in a sensible fashion’ and ‘the regulation\\nmust be settled and definite enough to avoid open-ended delays.’” Id. (quoting Jackson,\\n500 F.3d at 254). “States retain their police powers, allowing them to create health and safety\\nmeasures, but ‘those rules must be clear enough that the rail carrier can follow them and . . . the\\nstate cannot easily use them as a pretext for interfering with or curtailing rail service.’” Id.\\n(alteration in original) (quoting Jackson, 500 F.3d at 254).\\n\\n Here, the Ordinance is not settled and definite enough to avoid open-ended delays, and it\\ncould easily be used as a pretext for interfering with rail service. The Ordinance states that,\\n“before any change in grade is made by the . . . Railroad at any of the street crossings in the\\nCity[,] there first shall be filed with the City Clerk an application to the City Council setting out\\nsuch change in grade and approval of the City Council . . . must be secured before commencing\\nconstruction.” (Ordinance, R. 1-1, PageID 12.) The Ordinance does not contain any standards\\ncabining the city council’s discretion, nor any restrictions on how long the city council could\\ntake to decide whether to allow CSX to conduct necessary maintenance or construction. The\\nOrdinance could thus be used to deny CSX the ability to conduct its preferred method of\\nmaintenance both pretextually and indefinitely. Indeed, the Ordinance was used to deny CSX\\nthe ability to conduct maintenance—even the maintenance at Jefferson Street that would not\\nhave raised the grade of the crossing.\\n\\n Such an open-ended regulation is prohibited by the Termination Act. See Jackson,\\n500 F.3d at 254 (“[R]egulations may not (1) be so open-ended as to all but ensure delay and\\ndisagreement, or (2) actually be used unreasonably to delay or interfere with rail carriage.”);\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 8\\n\\n\\nGreen Mountain R.R. Corp. v. Vermont, 404 F.3d 638, 643 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding permit\\nrequirement was “preempted for two reasons: (i) it unduly interfere[d] with interstate commerce\\nby giving the local body the ability to deny the carrier the right to construct facilities or conduct\\noperations; and (ii) it [could] be time-consuming, allowing a local body to delay construction of\\nrailroad facilities almost indefinitely”) (citations omitted).1 The Ordinance thus cannot\\nwithstand the as-applied preemption analysis.\\n\\n The Ordinance is preempted as applied for a second reason as well: forcing CSX to use\\ncertain maintenance methods imposes an unreasonable burden on CSX. Neither party disputes\\nthat maintenance is necessary to correct fouled ballast. Instead, the battle is over which method\\nshould be used. The City contends that, because CSX can still perform track maintenance using\\nmethods that do not raise the crossings, such as undercutting, the Ordinance is not unreasonably\\nburdensome, and therefore not preempted as applied. In support, the City points to testimony\\nfrom its expert, who stated that undercutting is a better long-term solution because it actually\\ncorrects the problem of fouled ballast by removing it, rather than applying a “band-aid” approach\\nof raising the tracks, which needs to be done every five to seven years. And the City correctly\\nnotes that increased costs to the railroad are not enough to constitute an unreasonable burden.\\nSee Blissfield, 550 F.3d at 541 (“We doubt whether increased operating costs are alone sufficient\\nto establish ‘unreasonable’ interference with railroad operations.”) (quoting Barrois, 533 F.3d at\\n335).\\n\\n But undercutting causes more of a burden than merely increasing costs. According to\\ntestimony provided by CSX’s expert, undercutting presents a safety hazard because it threatens\\nthe structural integrity of the track. (See Hr’g Tr., R. 19, PageID 400 (“From a railroad\\nperspective, undercutting is the last option that we want to do . . . because it, in fact, greatly\\nweakens the track structure.”); id. at PageID 431 (“[T]he primary issue with undercutting, it\\nreduces train safety.”); id. at PageID 432 (undercutting on tracks with welded rails “greatly raises\\nthe risk of buckled track derailments”); id. (undercutting “reduce[s] train safety for a long period\\n\\n 1We note that the parties discuss Green Mountain and related arguments in the context of whether the\\nOrdinance is preempted under the categorical approach, but in Blissfield, we considered the concerns articulated in\\nGreen Mountain in our analysis of whether a regulation was preempted as applied. Thus, we do so here as well.\\nBlissfield, 550 F.3d at 541.\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 9\\n\\n\\nof time”).) Because the Ordinance has the effect of prohibiting CSX from using the maintenance\\nmethod it prefers and believes is the “industry best practice,” and instead requires the use of a\\nmethod that “reduces train safety,” it has the effect of unreasonably interfering with rail\\noperations. (See id. at PageID 431, 433.)\\n\\n Finally, the Ordinance “amount[s] to impermissible [local] regulation of [CSX’s]\\noperations by interfering with the railroad’s ability to uniformly design, construct, maintain, and\\nrepair its railroad line.” Thomas Tubbs, No. 35792, 2014 WL 5508153, *5 (S.T.B. Oct. 29,\\n2014). For example, forcing CSX to utilize undercutting in Sebree would result in the line\\nmaintaining its current height there, but if CSX surfaces the portions of its track outside of\\nSebree—and therefore raises them—it could result in an uneven track in violation of federal\\nregulations. See 49 C.F.R. § 213.63 (regulating track surface); 49 C.F.R. § 213.55 (providing\\ntrack alinement may not deviate from uniformity more than prescribed amounts). In any event,\\nthe Ordinance interferes with the railroad’s ability to maintain uniformity, in direct contravention\\nof the purpose of the Termination Act’s preemption provision to “prevent a patchwork of state\\nand local regulation from unreasonably interfering with interstate commerce.” Tubbs, 2014 WL\\n5508153 at *5. It is therefore preempted under the Termination Act.\\n\\n Still, the City argues that the Ordinance is expressly permitted by the FRSA’s savings\\nclause and cannot therefore be preempted by the Termination Act. But the FRSA does not save\\nthe Ordinance from preemption for one simple reason: we have held that the FRSA’s savings\\nclause only applies to state regulations and cannot save any municipal regulations. See CSX\\nTransp., Inc. v. City of Plymouth, 86 F.3d 626, 628 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that Plymouth’s\\nordinance did not fall within the FRSA’s preemption clause exceptions because the “exceptions\\napply only to a ‘State . . . law, regulation, or order’”) (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 20106).\\n\\n We note that Tyrrell suggests that if a regulation has a connection with rail safety then the\\n“FRSA provides the applicable standard for assessing federal preemption.” 248 F.3d at 524.\\nThe district court made no finding as to whether the Ordinance is related to rail safety, but even\\nif it is, our conclusion that the Ordinance is preempted does not change when we analyze\\npreemption under the FRSA. A regulation is preempted under the FRSA if “a FRSA regulation\\n‘substantially subsume[s]’ the subject matter of the suit.” Nickels v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., Inc.,\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 10\\n\\n\\n560 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 664).\\nRegulations relating to track structure and geometry substantially subsume the subject matter of\\nthis suit. First, 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.63 and 213.55 regulate track surface and track alinement, and\\nCSX’s ability to comply with these regulations could be jeopardized if the track in Sebree cannot\\nbe raised.\\n\\n Additionally, 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 details ballast requirements and requires the track to be\\nsupported by material which will “[p]rovide adequate drainage for the track . . . and [m]aintain\\nproper track crosslevel, surface, and alinement.” Although 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 does not directly\\nmandate a maintenance method to correct fouled ballast, “the regulation leaves the matter to the\\nrailroads’ discretion so long as the ballast performs the enumerated support functions. In this\\nway, the regulation substantially subsumes the issue of ballast” maintenance. See Nickels,\\n560 F.3d at 431 (holding that even though 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 does not directly regulate ballast\\nsize, a lawsuit relating to ballast size was preempted under the FRSA); see also CSX Transp.,\\nInc. v. City of Plymouth, 283 F.3d 812, 817 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding anti-blocking statute\\npreempted by FRSA because it would “require CSX[] to modify either the speed at which its\\ntrains travel or their length”). The Ordinance is thus also preempted under the FRSA.\\n\\n C. Agreed Order\\n\\n Having concluded that the Ordinance is preempted, we must next decide whether the\\nAgreed Order is preempted. Like the Ordinance, the Agreed Order unreasonably interferes with\\nrail transportation because it directs CSX to use a certain maintenance method (despite the safety\\nhazards associated with that method), and it covers a subject substantially subsumed by federal\\nregulations. The City argues that CSX cannot use the Termination Act to avoid its obligations\\nunder the Agreed Order. We generally agree that contracts that were “freely negotiated between\\nsophisticated business parties” should not be easily set aside, as they “reflect a market\\ncalculation” that the benefits of the agreement outweigh the costs. See PCS Phosphate Co. v.\\nNorfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212, 221 (4th Cir. 2009).\\n\\n But the circumstances presented in this case convince us that the Agreed Order\\nconstitutes an unreasonable interference with rail transportation and is thus void. The Agreed\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 11\\n\\n\\nOrder was entered into in 1979, over fifteen years before the Termination Act was enacted. And\\nCSX presented evidence that circumstances have materially changed since the agreement was\\nvoluntarily entered into by its predecessor: train loads are heavier and trains are faster now than\\nthey were back then, and the rails in Sebree are now “welded rails” as opposed to “jointed rails.”\\n(Hr’g Tr., R. 19, PageID 432.) CSX’s expert testified that these changes “greatly raise[] the risk\\nof buckled track derailments” by “decrease[ing the] track structure that holds the track in line.”\\n(Id.) Thus, CSX’s ability to perform undercutting, as opposed to surfacing, is “greatly different”\\ntoday than when the Agreed Order was signed. (Id.) We thus conclude that the Agreed Order is\\npreempted under the Termination Act and therefore void as against public policy. See R.R.\\nVentures, Fin. Docket No. 33385, 2000 WL 1125904, at *2 (S.T.B. 2000) (“While the Board\\nencourages privately negotiated agreements, any contractual restrictions that unreasonably\\ninterfere with common carrier operations are deemed void as contrary to public policy.”).\\n\\n The City points to two cases in an attempt to persuade us otherwise: (1) Township of\\nWoodbridge, et al. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 2000 WL 1771044 (S.T.B. 2000), and (2) PCS\\nPhosphate, 559 F.3d at 221. In Woodbridge, the STB held that the rail company was bound by a\\nvoluntary agreement requiring it to curtail the idling of locomotives and the switching of rail cars\\nbetween certain hours. 2000 WL 1771044, at *1, *3. And in PCS Phosphate, the Fourth Circuit\\nheld that an agreement between a rail company and a mine requiring the rail company to pay to\\nrelocate its track if it interfered with mining operations was not preempted by the Termination\\nAct. 559 F.3d at 215, 221. Both cases, however, were careful not to hold that a voluntarily\\nagreement can never be preempted by the Termination Act. See id. at 221 (“This is not to say\\nthat a voluntary agreement could never constitute an ‘unreasonable interference’ with rail\\ntransportation, but the facts of this case indicate that any interference is not unreasonable”);\\nWoodbridge, 2000 WL 1771044, at *3 (noting the rail company “ha[d] not shown that\\nenforcement of its commitments would unreasonably interfere with the railroad’s operations”).\\nUnlike the rail companies in those cases, CSX has shown that the Agreed Order would\\nunreasonably interfere with its rail operations by forcing it to utilize a maintenance method that\\nis no longer safe. We thus conclude that it is void as against public policy.\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 12\\n\\n\\n D. Scope of the Injunction\\n\\n The only remaining question is whether the scope of the injunction is impermissibly\\nbroad. Even assuming the City did not waive this objection, as CSX argues, we conclude that\\nthe district court did not abuse its discretion in setting the scope of the injunction. The district\\ncourt entered judgment in favor of CSX and permanently enjoined the City from “any\\nenforcement of either the 1966 Ordinance or 1979 Agreed Order or otherwise undertaking any\\naction which would seek to prevent CSX[] from raising its tracks for maintenance purposes\\nwithin the City of Sebree.” (J., R. 26, PageID 641) (emphasis added.) The City objects to the\\nitalicized portion of the judgment, arguing that the injunctive relief should be limited to the\\nCity’s enforcement of the Ordinance and the Agreed Order. The City cites only one case,\\nstanding for the proposition that a “district court should limit the scope of the injunction to the\\nconduct ‘which has been found to have been pursued or is related to the proven unlawful\\nconduct.’” Howe v. City of Akron, 801 F.3d 718, 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting E.E.O.C. v.\\nWilson Metal Casket, Co., 24 F.3d 836, 842 (6th Cir. 1994)).\\n\\n But the scope of the injunction here is “sufficiently tailored to the . . . district court’s\\nfindings . . . .” Id. at 755. The district court found that the Ordinance and the Agreed Order\\nwere preempted because they unreasonably interfered with CSX’s ability to maintain its tracks.\\nAny action that would seek to prevent CSX from raising its tracks for maintenance purposes\\nwould also unreasonably interfere with the railroad’s ability to maintain its tracks. The district\\ncourt did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting such conduct.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n We affirm the judgment of the district court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4396431/\", \"author_raw\": \"COLE, Chief Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"COLE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BATCHELDER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"DONALD"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619178/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF SEBREE, KENTUCKY, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-14\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0088p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n > No. 18-5647\n v. │\n │\n │\n CITY OF SEBREE, KENTUCKY, │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro.\n No. 4:17-cv-00137—Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., District Judge.\n\n Argued: January 30, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 14, 2019\n\n Before: COLE, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and DONALD, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Jennifer Parker Andrews, KING, DEEP & BRANAMAN, Henderson, Kentucky,\nfor Appellant. Andrew E. Tauber, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.\nON BRIEF: Jennifer Parker Andrews, H. Randall Redding, KING, DEEP & BRANAMAN,\nHenderson, Kentucky, for Appellant. Andrew E. Tauber, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington,\nD.C., Christopher J. Ferro, MAYER BROWN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Rod Payne, BOEHL\nSTOPHER & GRAVES LLP, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n COLE, Chief Judge. In 1966, the City of Sebree, Kentucky (the “City”) enacted an\nordinance requiring CSX Transportation, Inc.’s (“CSX”) predecessor to obtain approval from\n\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 2\n\n\ncity council before commencing any maintenance or construction project that would result in any\nchange in grade at any of the six railroad crossings in Sebree. After a dispute surrounding the\nordinance in 1979, the predecessor railroad company and the City entered into a settlement\nagreement whereby the rail company agreed not to raise the height of one crossing by more than\n0.4 feet and not to raise the height of another crossing at all. In 2017, CSX notified the City of\nits intent to perform maintenance that would result in raising four of the crossings, which led to\nthe current lawsuit. CSX sought, and the district court granted, a permanent injunction\nprohibiting the City from enforcing the ordinance or settlement agreement. Because we agree\nwith the district court that both the ordinance and settlement agreement are preempted by federal\nrailroad statutes, we affirm.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n An active railroad line runs through Sebree, a 1.6 square mile city in Webster County,\nKentucky. The rail line, operated by CSX, crosses six streets in Sebree: Jefferson, Webster,\nMain, Dixon, Mill, and Sebree Springs. Each of the crossings is a “peaked” or “humped”\ncrossing, meaning that there is a change in grade from the street to the top of the rails with the\nrailway tracks sitting higher than the road. The height of the crossings has long been a source of\nconcern for the City. According to the City, the elevation of the crossings creates two primary\nsafety concerns: (1) line of sight obstructions for vehicles and pedestrians crossing the tracks,\nand (2) a risk that low-profile vehicles and vehicles with long wheel bases, such as trucks and\nbuses, will become stuck or disabled. Understandably, the City does not want the height of the\ncrossings to be raised any further.\n\n On May 11, 1966, the City enacted an Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) requiring Louisville\nand Nashville Railroad (“L&N”)—CSX’s predecessor in interest—to obtain prior approval from\nthe city council before commencing maintenance or construction that would result in any change\nin grade at any of the crossings in Sebree. The Ordinance imposes a fine of not less than $50.00\nper day until the change is corrected.\n\n Despite the Ordinance, L&N raised the crossings at Jefferson and Webster in 1978\nwithout seeking prior approval from the City. The City informed L&N of its intent to enforce\n\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 3\n\n\nthe Ordinance if L&N attempted to raise the crossings at Main and Dixon. L&N thereafter filed\na lawsuit in the Webster County Circuit Court seeking to invalidate the Ordinance and requesting\nan injunction preventing the City from enforcing it. The circuit court issued an order in July of\n1979, denying L&N’s request for an injunction and temporarily enjoining L&N from making any\nrepairs that would raise the elevation of the Main Street or Dixon Street crossings without the\napproval of Sebree’s city council. In November 1979, L&N and the City resolved the litigation\nby entering an agreed order of dismissal (the “Agreed Order”) that removed the temporary\ninjunction against L&N. Pursuant to the Agreed Order, L&N agreed not to raise the level of the\ntracks at Main Street more than 0.4 feet above its then-current level, and not to raise the level of\nthe tracks at Dixon Street at all.\n\n Years later, CSX, as L&N’s successor in interest, determined that it needed to conduct\nmaintenance on the tracks in Sebree to correct the problem of fouled ballast. Ballast refers to the\ncrushed rock used to support tracks and allow proper drainage. The ballast becomes fouled when\nsmaller particles clog the space between the crushed rock, reducing the ability of water to drain\nfreely. There are at least two maintenance methods that can be utilized to correct fouled ballast.\nOne method, surfacing, entails lifting the track, which breaks the bottom of the ties—the\nsupports to which railroad rails are fastened—free from the compacted fouled ballast, and then\nraising the track to the desired height and forcing ballast back underneath. Another method is\nundercutting, which is the removal of all ballast between the ties from approximately eight\ninches under the bottom of the ties. Surfacing results in raising the height of the crossings, but\nundercutting can be done while maintaining the height of the grade, or even lowering it.\n\n In 2013, CSX began undertaking maintenance work that would result in an increase in\nthe height of four of the railroad crossings in Sebree. Sebree police “arrived on the scene and\nthreat[ened] CSX[] personnel with arrest[,]” and CSX was thus “not able to conduct the\nproposed maintenance that would result in raising the tracks.” (Compl., R. 1, PageID 6.) In\nAugust 2017, CSX informed the City of its intent to perform track maintenance that would result\nin raising the crossings at Dixon, Main, Webster, and Jefferson Streets by two to three inches.\nCSX also informed the City of its intent to perform additional work at the Jefferson Street\ncrossing, which would not raise the grade of the crossing. In October 2017, the Sebree city\n\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 4\n\n\ncouncil met to discuss CSX’s proposed track maintenance and voted 6-0 to deny CSX’s request\nto perform any of the proposed maintenance work.\n\n After the request to perform maintenance was denied, CSX brought this action for\ninjunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. CSX\nsought a preliminary injunction, seeking to prohibit the City from enforcing the Ordinance or the\nAgreed Order, or otherwise interfering with CSX’s railroad operations. The district court\ncombined the hearing on the preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits, and the proceeding\nwas held on March 1, 2018.\n\n On May 24, 2018, the district court issued an opinion, holding that the Ordinance was\npreempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (“Termination Act”), and\nthe Agreed Order was void as a matter of public policy. The court entered judgment in favor of\nCSX and permanently enjoined the City from “any enforcement of either the 1966 Ordinance or\n1979 Agreed Order or otherwise undertaking any action which would seek to prevent CSX from\nraising its tracks for maintenance purposes within the City of Sebree.” (J., R. 26, PageID 641.)\n\n The City timely appealed.\n\n II. ANALYSIS\n\n A. Standard of Review\n\n In reviewing a decision to grant or deny a motion for a permanent injunction, “we employ\nseveral different standards of review. ‘Factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous\nstandard, legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, and the scope of injunctive relief is reviewed\nfor an abuse of discretion.’” Sec’y of Labor, U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. 3Re.com, Inc., 317 F.3d 534,\n537 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting S. Cent. Power Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union\n2359, 186 F.3d 733, 737 (6th Cir. 1999)). A district court’s determination of federal preemption\nis reviewed de novo. Adrian & Blissfield R.R. Co. v. Vill. of Blissfield, 550 F.3d 533, 537 (6th\nCir. 2008).\n\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 5\n\n\n B. Ordinance\n\n We must first determine whether the Ordinance is preempted by federal laws governing\nrailroad transportation. “Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law preempts\nconflicting state law.” Tyrrell v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 248 F.3d 517, 522 (6th Cir. 2001).\nGenerally, “there is a presumption against the supplanting of historic state police powers” unless\npreemption is the “clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Id. (citation and internal quotation\nmarks omitted). Congress’s intent can be found in explicit statutory language or a statute’s\nstructure and purpose. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 (1992). When a\nstatute contains an explicit preemption clause, “the task of statutory construction must in the first\ninstance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of\nCongress’[s] pre-emptive intent.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993).\nThe “ultimate touchstone” of a preemption analysis, however, is “Congress’s purpose.” Tyrrell,\n248 F.3d at 522 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\n Two federal statutes that govern the railroad industry possibly preempt the Ordinance:\n(1) the Termination Act; and (2) the Federal Railroad Safety Act (“FRSA”). We begin, as the\ndistrict court did, with an analysis of whether the Ordinance is preempted under the Termination\nAct. Congress enacted the Termination Act in 1995, establishing the Surface Transportation\nBoard (“STB”) and giving the STB exclusive jurisdiction over certain aspects of railroad\ntransportation. 49 U.S.C. §§ 1301, 10501(b). Specifically, the Termination Act provides that:\n\n The jurisdiction of the [STB] over—\n (1) transportation by rail carriers, and the remedies provided in this part with\n respect to rates, classifications, rules (including car service, interchange,\n and other operating rules), practices, routes, services, and facilities of such\n carriers; and\n (2) the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance\n of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, or facilities, even if the\n tracks are located, or intended to be located, entirely in one State,\n is exclusive.\n\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 6\n\n\n49 U.S.C. § 10501(b). “Transportation” is broadly defined to include all equipment and services\nrelated to the movement of property by rail. 49 U.S.C. § 10102(9). The Termination Act further\nincludes an express preemption provision, stating:\n\n Except as otherwise provided in this part, the remedies provided under this part\n with respect to regulation of rail transportation are exclusive and preempt the\n remedies provided under Federal or State law.\n\n49 U.S.C. § 10501(b).\n\n “‘It is difficult to imagine a broader statement of Congress’[s] intent to preempt state\nregulatory authority over railroad operations.’” CSX Transp., Inc., Fin. Docket No. 34662, 2005\nWL 1024490, at *2 (S.T.B. May 3, 2005) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm’n,\n944 F. Supp. 1573, 1581 (N.D. Ga. 1996)). “The Termination Act therefore ‘preempts all state\nlaws that may reasonably be said to have the effect of managing or governing rail transportation,\nwhile permitting the continued application of laws having a more remote or incidental effect on\nrail transportation.’” Blissfield, 550 F.3d at 539 (quoting N.Y. Susquehanna & W. Ry. Corp. v.\nJackson, 500 F.3d 238, 252 (3d Cir. 2007)). While states retain their general police powers,\n“‘the Federal scheme of economic regulation and deregulation is intended to address and\nencompass all such regulation and to be completely exclusive.’” Id. (quoting PCI Transp., Inc.\nv. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., 418 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2005)).\n\n We have adopted the STB’s “‘comprehensive test for determining the extent to which a\nparticular state action or remedy is preempted by § 10501(b).’” Id. (quoting New Orleans &\nGulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois, 533 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2008)). Under that test, there are two\ntypes of preempted state actions or regulations: those that are “categorically preempted” and\nthose that are “preempted as applied.” Id. at 540. A state regulation is categorically or facially\npreempted if it “would directly conflict with exclusive federal regulation of railroads.” Id.\n(quoting Barrois, 533 F.3d at 332). Even if a state or local action is not categorically preempted,\nit may be preempted as applied. The as-applied analysis requires an “‘assessment of whether\nthat action would have the effect of preventing or unreasonably interfering with railroad\ntransportation.’” Id. (quoting Barrois, 533 F.3d at 332).\n\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 7\n\n\n CSX argues that the Ordinance is categorically preempted, while the City urges us to\nconduct only the as-applied preemption analysis. Even under the as-applied analysis, we hold\nthat the Ordinance is preempted by the Termination Act.\n\n A regulation is permissible as applied so long as “(1) it is not unreasonably burdensome,\nand (2) it does not discriminate against railroads.” Id. at 541 (quoting Jackson, 500 F.3d at 253).\nThe “touchstone” of the as-applied analysis “is whether the state regulation imposes an\nunreasonable burden on railroading.” Id. (quoting Jackson, 500 F.3d at 253). In terms of the\nunreasonably-burdensome prong, “‘the substance of the regulation must not be so draconian that\nit prevents the railroad from carrying out its business in a sensible fashion’ and ‘the regulation\nmust be settled and definite enough to avoid open-ended delays.’” Id. (quoting Jackson,\n500 F.3d at 254). “States retain their police powers, allowing them to create health and safety\nmeasures, but ‘those rules must be clear enough that the rail carrier can follow them and . . . the\nstate cannot easily use them as a pretext for interfering with or curtailing rail service.’” Id.\n(alteration in original) (quoting Jackson, 500 F.3d at 254).\n\n Here, the Ordinance is not settled and definite enough to avoid open-ended delays, and it\ncould easily be used as a pretext for interfering with rail service. The Ordinance states that,\n“before any change in grade is made by the . . . Railroad at any of the street crossings in the\nCity[,] there first shall be filed with the City Clerk an application to the City Council setting out\nsuch change in grade and approval of the City Council . . . must be secured before commencing\nconstruction.” (Ordinance, R. 1-1, PageID 12.) The Ordinance does not contain any standards\ncabining the city council’s discretion, nor any restrictions on how long the city council could\ntake to decide whether to allow CSX to conduct necessary maintenance or construction. The\nOrdinance could thus be used to deny CSX the ability to conduct its preferred method of\nmaintenance both pretextually and indefinitely. Indeed, the Ordinance was used to deny CSX\nthe ability to conduct maintenance—even the maintenance at Jefferson Street that would not\nhave raised the grade of the crossing.\n\n Such an open-ended regulation is prohibited by the Termination Act. See Jackson,\n500 F.3d at 254 (“[R]egulations may not (1) be so open-ended as to all but ensure delay and\ndisagreement, or (2) actually be used unreasonably to delay or interfere with rail carriage.”);\n\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 8\n\n\nGreen Mountain R.R. Corp. v. Vermont, 404 F.3d 638, 643 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding permit\nrequirement was “preempted for two reasons: (i) it unduly interfere[d] with interstate commerce\nby giving the local body the ability to deny the carrier the right to construct facilities or conduct\noperations; and (ii) it [could] be time-consuming, allowing a local body to delay construction of\nrailroad facilities almost indefinitely”) (citations omitted).1 The Ordinance thus cannot\nwithstand the as-applied preemption analysis.\n\n The Ordinance is preempted as applied for a second reason as well: forcing CSX to use\ncertain maintenance methods imposes an unreasonable burden on CSX. Neither party disputes\nthat maintenance is necessary to correct fouled ballast. Instead, the battle is over which method\nshould be used. The City contends that, because CSX can still perform track maintenance using\nmethods that do not raise the crossings, such as undercutting, the Ordinance is not unreasonably\nburdensome, and therefore not preempted as applied. In support, the City points to testimony\nfrom its expert, who stated that undercutting is a better long-term solution because it actually\ncorrects the problem of fouled ballast by removing it, rather than applying a “band-aid” approach\nof raising the tracks, which needs to be done every five to seven years. And the City correctly\nnotes that increased costs to the railroad are not enough to constitute an unreasonable burden.\nSee Blissfield, 550 F.3d at 541 (“We doubt whether increased operating costs are alone sufficient\nto establish ‘unreasonable’ interference with railroad operations.”) (quoting Barrois, 533 F.3d at\n335).\n\n But undercutting causes more of a burden than merely increasing costs. According to\ntestimony provided by CSX’s expert, undercutting presents a safety hazard because it threatens\nthe structural integrity of the track. (See Hr’g Tr., R. 19, PageID 400 (“From a railroad\nperspective, undercutting is the last option that we want to do . . . because it, in fact, greatly\nweakens the track structure.”); id. at PageID 431 (“[T]he primary issue with undercutting, it\nreduces train safety.”); id. at PageID 432 (undercutting on tracks with welded rails “greatly raises\nthe risk of buckled track derailments”); id. (undercutting “reduce[s] train safety for a long period\n\n 1We note that the parties discuss Green Mountain and related arguments in the context of whether the\nOrdinance is preempted under the categorical approach, but in Blissfield, we considered the concerns articulated in\nGreen Mountain in our analysis of whether a regulation was preempted as applied. Thus, we do so here as well.\nBlissfield, 550 F.3d at 541.\n\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 9\n\n\nof time”).) Because the Ordinance has the effect of prohibiting CSX from using the maintenance\nmethod it prefers and believes is the “industry best practice,” and instead requires the use of a\nmethod that “reduces train safety,” it has the effect of unreasonably interfering with rail\noperations. (See id. at PageID 431, 433.)\n\n Finally, the Ordinance “amount[s] to impermissible [local] regulation of [CSX’s]\noperations by interfering with the railroad’s ability to uniformly design, construct, maintain, and\nrepair its railroad line.” Thomas Tubbs, No. 35792, 2014 WL 5508153, *5 (S.T.B. Oct. 29,\n2014). For example, forcing CSX to utilize undercutting in Sebree would result in the line\nmaintaining its current height there, but if CSX surfaces the portions of its track outside of\nSebree—and therefore raises them—it could result in an uneven track in violation of federal\nregulations. See 49 C.F.R. § 213.63 (regulating track surface); 49 C.F.R. § 213.55 (providing\ntrack alinement may not deviate from uniformity more than prescribed amounts). In any event,\nthe Ordinance interferes with the railroad’s ability to maintain uniformity, in direct contravention\nof the purpose of the Termination Act’s preemption provision to “prevent a patchwork of state\nand local regulation from unreasonably interfering with interstate commerce.” Tubbs, 2014 WL\n5508153 at *5. It is therefore preempted under the Termination Act.\n\n Still, the City argues that the Ordinance is expressly permitted by the FRSA’s savings\nclause and cannot therefore be preempted by the Termination Act. But the FRSA does not save\nthe Ordinance from preemption for one simple reason: we have held that the FRSA’s savings\nclause only applies to state regulations and cannot save any municipal regulations. See CSX\nTransp., Inc. v. City of Plymouth, 86 F.3d 626, 628 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that Plymouth’s\nordinance did not fall within the FRSA’s preemption clause exceptions because the “exceptions\napply only to a ‘State . . . law, regulation, or order’”) (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 20106).\n\n We note that Tyrrell suggests that if a regulation has a connection with rail safety then the\n“FRSA provides the applicable standard for assessing federal preemption.” 248 F.3d at 524.\nThe district court made no finding as to whether the Ordinance is related to rail safety, but even\nif it is, our conclusion that the Ordinance is preempted does not change when we analyze\npreemption under the FRSA. A regulation is preempted under the FRSA if “a FRSA regulation\n‘substantially subsume[s]’ the subject matter of the suit.” Nickels v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., Inc.,\n\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 10\n\n\n560 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 664).\nRegulations relating to track structure and geometry substantially subsume the subject matter of\nthis suit. First, 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.63 and 213.55 regulate track surface and track alinement, and\nCSX’s ability to comply with these regulations could be jeopardized if the track in Sebree cannot\nbe raised.\n\n Additionally, 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 details ballast requirements and requires the track to be\nsupported by material which will “[p]rovide adequate drainage for the track . . . and [m]aintain\nproper track crosslevel, surface, and alinement.” Although 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 does not directly\nmandate a maintenance method to correct fouled ballast, “the regulation leaves the matter to the\nrailroads’ discretion so long as the ballast performs the enumerated support functions. In this\nway, the regulation substantially subsumes the issue of ballast” maintenance. See Nickels,\n560 F.3d at 431 (holding that even though 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 does not directly regulate ballast\nsize, a lawsuit relating to ballast size was preempted under the FRSA); see also CSX Transp.,\nInc. v. City of Plymouth, 283 F.3d 812, 817 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding anti-blocking statute\npreempted by FRSA because it would “require CSX[] to modify either the speed at which its\ntrains travel or their length”). The Ordinance is thus also preempted under the FRSA.\n\n C. Agreed Order\n\n Having concluded that the Ordinance is preempted, we must next decide whether the\nAgreed Order is preempted. Like the Ordinance, the Agreed Order unreasonably interferes with\nrail transportation because it directs CSX to use a certain maintenance method (despite the safety\nhazards associated with that method), and it covers a subject substantially subsumed by federal\nregulations. The City argues that CSX cannot use the Termination Act to avoid its obligations\nunder the Agreed Order. We generally agree that contracts that were “freely negotiated between\nsophisticated business parties” should not be easily set aside, as they “reflect a market\ncalculation” that the benefits of the agreement outweigh the costs. See PCS Phosphate Co. v.\nNorfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212, 221 (4th Cir. 2009).\n\n But the circumstances presented in this case convince us that the Agreed Order\nconstitutes an unreasonable interference with rail transportation and is thus void. The Agreed\n\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 11\n\n\nOrder was entered into in 1979, over fifteen years before the Termination Act was enacted. And\nCSX presented evidence that circumstances have materially changed since the agreement was\nvoluntarily entered into by its predecessor: train loads are heavier and trains are faster now than\nthey were back then, and the rails in Sebree are now “welded rails” as opposed to “jointed rails.”\n(Hr’g Tr., R. 19, PageID 432.) CSX’s expert testified that these changes “greatly raise[] the risk\nof buckled track derailments” by “decrease[ing the] track structure that holds the track in line.”\n(Id.) Thus, CSX’s ability to perform undercutting, as opposed to surfacing, is “greatly different”\ntoday than when the Agreed Order was signed. (Id.) We thus conclude that the Agreed Order is\npreempted under the Termination Act and therefore void as against public policy. See R.R.\nVentures, Fin. Docket No. 33385, 2000 WL 1125904, at *2 (S.T.B. 2000) (“While the Board\nencourages privately negotiated agreements, any contractual restrictions that unreasonably\ninterfere with common carrier operations are deemed void as contrary to public policy.”).\n\n The City points to two cases in an attempt to persuade us otherwise: (1) Township of\nWoodbridge, et al. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 2000 WL 1771044 (S.T.B. 2000), and (2) PCS\nPhosphate, 559 F.3d at 221. In Woodbridge, the STB held that the rail company was bound by a\nvoluntary agreement requiring it to curtail the idling of locomotives and the switching of rail cars\nbetween certain hours. 2000 WL 1771044, at *1, *3. And in PCS Phosphate, the Fourth Circuit\nheld that an agreement between a rail company and a mine requiring the rail company to pay to\nrelocate its track if it interfered with mining operations was not preempted by the Termination\nAct. 559 F.3d at 215, 221. Both cases, however, were careful not to hold that a voluntarily\nagreement can never be preempted by the Termination Act. See id. at 221 (“This is not to say\nthat a voluntary agreement could never constitute an ‘unreasonable interference’ with rail\ntransportation, but the facts of this case indicate that any interference is not unreasonable”);\nWoodbridge, 2000 WL 1771044, at *3 (noting the rail company “ha[d] not shown that\nenforcement of its commitments would unreasonably interfere with the railroad’s operations”).\nUnlike the rail companies in those cases, CSX has shown that the Agreed Order would\nunreasonably interfere with its rail operations by forcing it to utilize a maintenance method that\nis no longer safe. We thus conclude that it is void as against public policy.\n\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 12\n\n\n D. Scope of the Injunction\n\n The only remaining question is whether the scope of the injunction is impermissibly\nbroad. Even assuming the City did not waive this objection, as CSX argues, we conclude that\nthe district court did not abuse its discretion in setting the scope of the injunction. The district\ncourt entered judgment in favor of CSX and permanently enjoined the City from “any\nenforcement of either the 1966 Ordinance or 1979 Agreed Order or otherwise undertaking any\naction which would seek to prevent CSX[] from raising its tracks for maintenance purposes\nwithin the City of Sebree.” (J., R. 26, PageID 641) (emphasis added.) The City objects to the\nitalicized portion of the judgment, arguing that the injunctive relief should be limited to the\nCity’s enforcement of the Ordinance and the Agreed Order. The City cites only one case,\nstanding for the proposition that a “district court should limit the scope of the injunction to the\nconduct ‘which has been found to have been pursued or is related to the proven unlawful\nconduct.’” Howe v. City of Akron, 801 F.3d 718, 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting E.E.O.C. v.\nWilson Metal Casket, Co., 24 F.3d 836, 842 (6th Cir. 1994)).\n\n But the scope of the injunction here is “sufficiently tailored to the . . . district court’s\nfindings . . . .” Id. at 755. The district court found that the Ordinance and the Agreed Order\nwere preempted because they unreasonably interfered with CSX’s ability to maintain its tracks.\nAny action that would seek to prevent CSX from raising its tracks for maintenance purposes\nwould also unreasonably interfere with the railroad’s ability to maintain its tracks. The district\ncourt did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting such conduct.\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n We affirm the judgment of the district court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF SEBREE, KENTUCKY, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-14\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0088p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5647\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n CITY OF SEBREE, KENTUCKY, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro.\\n No. 4:17-cv-00137—Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: January 30, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 14, 2019\\n\\n Before: COLE, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and DONALD, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Jennifer Parker Andrews, KING, DEEP & BRANAMAN, Henderson, Kentucky,\\nfor Appellant. Andrew E. Tauber, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.\\nON BRIEF: Jennifer Parker Andrews, H. Randall Redding, KING, DEEP & BRANAMAN,\\nHenderson, Kentucky, for Appellant. Andrew E. Tauber, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington,\\nD.C., Christopher J. Ferro, MAYER BROWN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Rod Payne, BOEHL\\nSTOPHER & GRAVES LLP, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n COLE, Chief Judge. In 1966, the City of Sebree, Kentucky (the “City”) enacted an\\nordinance requiring CSX Transportation, Inc.’s (“CSX”) predecessor to obtain approval from\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 2\\n\\n\\ncity council before commencing any maintenance or construction project that would result in any\\nchange in grade at any of the six railroad crossings in Sebree. After a dispute surrounding the\\nordinance in 1979, the predecessor railroad company and the City entered into a settlement\\nagreement whereby the rail company agreed not to raise the height of one crossing by more than\\n0.4 feet and not to raise the height of another crossing at all. In 2017, CSX notified the City of\\nits intent to perform maintenance that would result in raising four of the crossings, which led to\\nthe current lawsuit. CSX sought, and the district court granted, a permanent injunction\\nprohibiting the City from enforcing the ordinance or settlement agreement. Because we agree\\nwith the district court that both the ordinance and settlement agreement are preempted by federal\\nrailroad statutes, we affirm.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n An active railroad line runs through Sebree, a 1.6 square mile city in Webster County,\\nKentucky. The rail line, operated by CSX, crosses six streets in Sebree: Jefferson, Webster,\\nMain, Dixon, Mill, and Sebree Springs. Each of the crossings is a “peaked” or “humped”\\ncrossing, meaning that there is a change in grade from the street to the top of the rails with the\\nrailway tracks sitting higher than the road. The height of the crossings has long been a source of\\nconcern for the City. According to the City, the elevation of the crossings creates two primary\\nsafety concerns: (1) line of sight obstructions for vehicles and pedestrians crossing the tracks,\\nand (2) a risk that low-profile vehicles and vehicles with long wheel bases, such as trucks and\\nbuses, will become stuck or disabled. Understandably, the City does not want the height of the\\ncrossings to be raised any further.\\n\\n On May 11, 1966, the City enacted an Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) requiring Louisville\\nand Nashville Railroad (“L&N”)—CSX’s predecessor in interest—to obtain prior approval from\\nthe city council before commencing maintenance or construction that would result in any change\\nin grade at any of the crossings in Sebree. The Ordinance imposes a fine of not less than $50.00\\nper day until the change is corrected.\\n\\n Despite the Ordinance, L&N raised the crossings at Jefferson and Webster in 1978\\nwithout seeking prior approval from the City. The City informed L&N of its intent to enforce\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 3\\n\\n\\nthe Ordinance if L&N attempted to raise the crossings at Main and Dixon. L&N thereafter filed\\na lawsuit in the Webster County Circuit Court seeking to invalidate the Ordinance and requesting\\nan injunction preventing the City from enforcing it. The circuit court issued an order in July of\\n1979, denying L&N’s request for an injunction and temporarily enjoining L&N from making any\\nrepairs that would raise the elevation of the Main Street or Dixon Street crossings without the\\napproval of Sebree’s city council. In November 1979, L&N and the City resolved the litigation\\nby entering an agreed order of dismissal (the “Agreed Order”) that removed the temporary\\ninjunction against L&N. Pursuant to the Agreed Order, L&N agreed not to raise the level of the\\ntracks at Main Street more than 0.4 feet above its then-current level, and not to raise the level of\\nthe tracks at Dixon Street at all.\\n\\n Years later, CSX, as L&N’s successor in interest, determined that it needed to conduct\\nmaintenance on the tracks in Sebree to correct the problem of fouled ballast. Ballast refers to the\\ncrushed rock used to support tracks and allow proper drainage. The ballast becomes fouled when\\nsmaller particles clog the space between the crushed rock, reducing the ability of water to drain\\nfreely. There are at least two maintenance methods that can be utilized to correct fouled ballast.\\nOne method, surfacing, entails lifting the track, which breaks the bottom of the ties—the\\nsupports to which railroad rails are fastened—free from the compacted fouled ballast, and then\\nraising the track to the desired height and forcing ballast back underneath. Another method is\\nundercutting, which is the removal of all ballast between the ties from approximately eight\\ninches under the bottom of the ties. Surfacing results in raising the height of the crossings, but\\nundercutting can be done while maintaining the height of the grade, or even lowering it.\\n\\n In 2013, CSX began undertaking maintenance work that would result in an increase in\\nthe height of four of the railroad crossings in Sebree. Sebree police “arrived on the scene and\\nthreat[ened] CSX[] personnel with arrest[,]” and CSX was thus “not able to conduct the\\nproposed maintenance that would result in raising the tracks.” (Compl., R. 1, PageID 6.) In\\nAugust 2017, CSX informed the City of its intent to perform track maintenance that would result\\nin raising the crossings at Dixon, Main, Webster, and Jefferson Streets by two to three inches.\\nCSX also informed the City of its intent to perform additional work at the Jefferson Street\\ncrossing, which would not raise the grade of the crossing. In October 2017, the Sebree city\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 4\\n\\n\\ncouncil met to discuss CSX’s proposed track maintenance and voted 6-0 to deny CSX’s request\\nto perform any of the proposed maintenance work.\\n\\n After the request to perform maintenance was denied, CSX brought this action for\\ninjunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. CSX\\nsought a preliminary injunction, seeking to prohibit the City from enforcing the Ordinance or the\\nAgreed Order, or otherwise interfering with CSX’s railroad operations. The district court\\ncombined the hearing on the preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits, and the proceeding\\nwas held on March 1, 2018.\\n\\n On May 24, 2018, the district court issued an opinion, holding that the Ordinance was\\npreempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (“Termination Act”), and\\nthe Agreed Order was void as a matter of public policy. The court entered judgment in favor of\\nCSX and permanently enjoined the City from “any enforcement of either the 1966 Ordinance or\\n1979 Agreed Order or otherwise undertaking any action which would seek to prevent CSX from\\nraising its tracks for maintenance purposes within the City of Sebree.” (J., R. 26, PageID 641.)\\n\\n The City timely appealed.\\n\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n\\n A. Standard of Review\\n\\n In reviewing a decision to grant or deny a motion for a permanent injunction, “we employ\\nseveral different standards of review. ‘Factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous\\nstandard, legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, and the scope of injunctive relief is reviewed\\nfor an abuse of discretion.’” Sec’y of Labor, U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. 3Re.com, Inc., 317 F.3d 534,\\n537 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting S. Cent. Power Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union\\n2359, 186 F.3d 733, 737 (6th Cir. 1999)). A district court’s determination of federal preemption\\nis reviewed de novo. Adrian & Blissfield R.R. Co. v. Vill. of Blissfield, 550 F.3d 533, 537 (6th\\nCir. 2008).\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 5\\n\\n\\n B. Ordinance\\n\\n We must first determine whether the Ordinance is preempted by federal laws governing\\nrailroad transportation. “Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law preempts\\nconflicting state law.” Tyrrell v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 248 F.3d 517, 522 (6th Cir. 2001).\\nGenerally, “there is a presumption against the supplanting of historic state police powers” unless\\npreemption is the “clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Id. (citation and internal quotation\\nmarks omitted). Congress’s intent can be found in explicit statutory language or a statute’s\\nstructure and purpose. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 (1992). When a\\nstatute contains an explicit preemption clause, “the task of statutory construction must in the first\\ninstance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of\\nCongress’[s] pre-emptive intent.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993).\\nThe “ultimate touchstone” of a preemption analysis, however, is “Congress’s purpose.” Tyrrell,\\n248 F.3d at 522 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\\n Two federal statutes that govern the railroad industry possibly preempt the Ordinance:\\n(1) the Termination Act; and (2) the Federal Railroad Safety Act (“FRSA”). We begin, as the\\ndistrict court did, with an analysis of whether the Ordinance is preempted under the Termination\\nAct. Congress enacted the Termination Act in 1995, establishing the Surface Transportation\\nBoard (“STB”) and giving the STB exclusive jurisdiction over certain aspects of railroad\\ntransportation. 49 U.S.C. §§ 1301, 10501(b). Specifically, the Termination Act provides that:\\n\\n The jurisdiction of the [STB] over—\\n (1) transportation by rail carriers, and the remedies provided in this part with\\n respect to rates, classifications, rules (including car service, interchange,\\n and other operating rules), practices, routes, services, and facilities of such\\n carriers; and\\n (2) the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance\\n of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, or facilities, even if the\\n tracks are located, or intended to be located, entirely in one State,\\n is exclusive.\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 6\\n\\n\\n49 U.S.C. § 10501(b). “Transportation” is broadly defined to include all equipment and services\\nrelated to the movement of property by rail. 49 U.S.C. § 10102(9). The Termination Act further\\nincludes an express preemption provision, stating:\\n\\n Except as otherwise provided in this part, the remedies provided under this part\\n with respect to regulation of rail transportation are exclusive and preempt the\\n remedies provided under Federal or State law.\\n\\n49 U.S.C. § 10501(b).\\n\\n “‘It is difficult to imagine a broader statement of Congress’[s] intent to preempt state\\nregulatory authority over railroad operations.’” CSX Transp., Inc., Fin. Docket No. 34662, 2005\\nWL 1024490, at *2 (S.T.B. May 3, 2005) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm’n,\\n944 F. Supp. 1573, 1581 (N.D. Ga. 1996)). “The Termination Act therefore ‘preempts all state\\nlaws that may reasonably be said to have the effect of managing or governing rail transportation,\\nwhile permitting the continued application of laws having a more remote or incidental effect on\\nrail transportation.’” Blissfield, 550 F.3d at 539 (quoting N.Y. Susquehanna & W. Ry. Corp. v.\\nJackson, 500 F.3d 238, 252 (3d Cir. 2007)). While states retain their general police powers,\\n“‘the Federal scheme of economic regulation and deregulation is intended to address and\\nencompass all such regulation and to be completely exclusive.’” Id. (quoting PCI Transp., Inc.\\nv. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., 418 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2005)).\\n\\n We have adopted the STB’s “‘comprehensive test for determining the extent to which a\\nparticular state action or remedy is preempted by § 10501(b).’” Id. (quoting New Orleans &\\nGulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois, 533 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2008)). Under that test, there are two\\ntypes of preempted state actions or regulations: those that are “categorically preempted” and\\nthose that are “preempted as applied.” Id. at 540. A state regulation is categorically or facially\\npreempted if it “would directly conflict with exclusive federal regulation of railroads.” Id.\\n(quoting Barrois, 533 F.3d at 332). Even if a state or local action is not categorically preempted,\\nit may be preempted as applied. The as-applied analysis requires an “‘assessment of whether\\nthat action would have the effect of preventing or unreasonably interfering with railroad\\ntransportation.’” Id. (quoting Barrois, 533 F.3d at 332).\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 7\\n\\n\\n CSX argues that the Ordinance is categorically preempted, while the City urges us to\\nconduct only the as-applied preemption analysis. Even under the as-applied analysis, we hold\\nthat the Ordinance is preempted by the Termination Act.\\n\\n A regulation is permissible as applied so long as “(1) it is not unreasonably burdensome,\\nand (2) it does not discriminate against railroads.” Id. at 541 (quoting Jackson, 500 F.3d at 253).\\nThe “touchstone” of the as-applied analysis “is whether the state regulation imposes an\\nunreasonable burden on railroading.” Id. (quoting Jackson, 500 F.3d at 253). In terms of the\\nunreasonably-burdensome prong, “‘the substance of the regulation must not be so draconian that\\nit prevents the railroad from carrying out its business in a sensible fashion’ and ‘the regulation\\nmust be settled and definite enough to avoid open-ended delays.’” Id. (quoting Jackson,\\n500 F.3d at 254). “States retain their police powers, allowing them to create health and safety\\nmeasures, but ‘those rules must be clear enough that the rail carrier can follow them and . . . the\\nstate cannot easily use them as a pretext for interfering with or curtailing rail service.’” Id.\\n(alteration in original) (quoting Jackson, 500 F.3d at 254).\\n\\n Here, the Ordinance is not settled and definite enough to avoid open-ended delays, and it\\ncould easily be used as a pretext for interfering with rail service. The Ordinance states that,\\n“before any change in grade is made by the . . . Railroad at any of the street crossings in the\\nCity[,] there first shall be filed with the City Clerk an application to the City Council setting out\\nsuch change in grade and approval of the City Council . . . must be secured before commencing\\nconstruction.” (Ordinance, R. 1-1, PageID 12.) The Ordinance does not contain any standards\\ncabining the city council’s discretion, nor any restrictions on how long the city council could\\ntake to decide whether to allow CSX to conduct necessary maintenance or construction. The\\nOrdinance could thus be used to deny CSX the ability to conduct its preferred method of\\nmaintenance both pretextually and indefinitely. Indeed, the Ordinance was used to deny CSX\\nthe ability to conduct maintenance—even the maintenance at Jefferson Street that would not\\nhave raised the grade of the crossing.\\n\\n Such an open-ended regulation is prohibited by the Termination Act. See Jackson,\\n500 F.3d at 254 (“[R]egulations may not (1) be so open-ended as to all but ensure delay and\\ndisagreement, or (2) actually be used unreasonably to delay or interfere with rail carriage.”);\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 8\\n\\n\\nGreen Mountain R.R. Corp. v. Vermont, 404 F.3d 638, 643 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding permit\\nrequirement was “preempted for two reasons: (i) it unduly interfere[d] with interstate commerce\\nby giving the local body the ability to deny the carrier the right to construct facilities or conduct\\noperations; and (ii) it [could] be time-consuming, allowing a local body to delay construction of\\nrailroad facilities almost indefinitely”) (citations omitted).1 The Ordinance thus cannot\\nwithstand the as-applied preemption analysis.\\n\\n The Ordinance is preempted as applied for a second reason as well: forcing CSX to use\\ncertain maintenance methods imposes an unreasonable burden on CSX. Neither party disputes\\nthat maintenance is necessary to correct fouled ballast. Instead, the battle is over which method\\nshould be used. The City contends that, because CSX can still perform track maintenance using\\nmethods that do not raise the crossings, such as undercutting, the Ordinance is not unreasonably\\nburdensome, and therefore not preempted as applied. In support, the City points to testimony\\nfrom its expert, who stated that undercutting is a better long-term solution because it actually\\ncorrects the problem of fouled ballast by removing it, rather than applying a “band-aid” approach\\nof raising the tracks, which needs to be done every five to seven years. And the City correctly\\nnotes that increased costs to the railroad are not enough to constitute an unreasonable burden.\\nSee Blissfield, 550 F.3d at 541 (“We doubt whether increased operating costs are alone sufficient\\nto establish ‘unreasonable’ interference with railroad operations.”) (quoting Barrois, 533 F.3d at\\n335).\\n\\n But undercutting causes more of a burden than merely increasing costs. According to\\ntestimony provided by CSX’s expert, undercutting presents a safety hazard because it threatens\\nthe structural integrity of the track. (See Hr’g Tr., R. 19, PageID 400 (“From a railroad\\nperspective, undercutting is the last option that we want to do . . . because it, in fact, greatly\\nweakens the track structure.”); id. at PageID 431 (“[T]he primary issue with undercutting, it\\nreduces train safety.”); id. at PageID 432 (undercutting on tracks with welded rails “greatly raises\\nthe risk of buckled track derailments”); id. (undercutting “reduce[s] train safety for a long period\\n\\n 1We note that the parties discuss Green Mountain and related arguments in the context of whether the\\nOrdinance is preempted under the categorical approach, but in Blissfield, we considered the concerns articulated in\\nGreen Mountain in our analysis of whether a regulation was preempted as applied. Thus, we do so here as well.\\nBlissfield, 550 F.3d at 541.\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 9\\n\\n\\nof time”).) Because the Ordinance has the effect of prohibiting CSX from using the maintenance\\nmethod it prefers and believes is the “industry best practice,” and instead requires the use of a\\nmethod that “reduces train safety,” it has the effect of unreasonably interfering with rail\\noperations. (See id. at PageID 431, 433.)\\n\\n Finally, the Ordinance “amount[s] to impermissible [local] regulation of [CSX’s]\\noperations by interfering with the railroad’s ability to uniformly design, construct, maintain, and\\nrepair its railroad line.” Thomas Tubbs, No. 35792, 2014 WL 5508153, *5 (S.T.B. Oct. 29,\\n2014). For example, forcing CSX to utilize undercutting in Sebree would result in the line\\nmaintaining its current height there, but if CSX surfaces the portions of its track outside of\\nSebree—and therefore raises them—it could result in an uneven track in violation of federal\\nregulations. See 49 C.F.R. § 213.63 (regulating track surface); 49 C.F.R. § 213.55 (providing\\ntrack alinement may not deviate from uniformity more than prescribed amounts). In any event,\\nthe Ordinance interferes with the railroad’s ability to maintain uniformity, in direct contravention\\nof the purpose of the Termination Act’s preemption provision to “prevent a patchwork of state\\nand local regulation from unreasonably interfering with interstate commerce.” Tubbs, 2014 WL\\n5508153 at *5. It is therefore preempted under the Termination Act.\\n\\n Still, the City argues that the Ordinance is expressly permitted by the FRSA’s savings\\nclause and cannot therefore be preempted by the Termination Act. But the FRSA does not save\\nthe Ordinance from preemption for one simple reason: we have held that the FRSA’s savings\\nclause only applies to state regulations and cannot save any municipal regulations. See CSX\\nTransp., Inc. v. City of Plymouth, 86 F.3d 626, 628 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that Plymouth’s\\nordinance did not fall within the FRSA’s preemption clause exceptions because the “exceptions\\napply only to a ‘State . . . law, regulation, or order’”) (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 20106).\\n\\n We note that Tyrrell suggests that if a regulation has a connection with rail safety then the\\n“FRSA provides the applicable standard for assessing federal preemption.” 248 F.3d at 524.\\nThe district court made no finding as to whether the Ordinance is related to rail safety, but even\\nif it is, our conclusion that the Ordinance is preempted does not change when we analyze\\npreemption under the FRSA. A regulation is preempted under the FRSA if “a FRSA regulation\\n‘substantially subsume[s]’ the subject matter of the suit.” Nickels v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., Inc.,\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 10\\n\\n\\n560 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 664).\\nRegulations relating to track structure and geometry substantially subsume the subject matter of\\nthis suit. First, 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.63 and 213.55 regulate track surface and track alinement, and\\nCSX’s ability to comply with these regulations could be jeopardized if the track in Sebree cannot\\nbe raised.\\n\\n Additionally, 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 details ballast requirements and requires the track to be\\nsupported by material which will “[p]rovide adequate drainage for the track . . . and [m]aintain\\nproper track crosslevel, surface, and alinement.” Although 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 does not directly\\nmandate a maintenance method to correct fouled ballast, “the regulation leaves the matter to the\\nrailroads’ discretion so long as the ballast performs the enumerated support functions. In this\\nway, the regulation substantially subsumes the issue of ballast” maintenance. See Nickels,\\n560 F.3d at 431 (holding that even though 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 does not directly regulate ballast\\nsize, a lawsuit relating to ballast size was preempted under the FRSA); see also CSX Transp.,\\nInc. v. City of Plymouth, 283 F.3d 812, 817 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding anti-blocking statute\\npreempted by FRSA because it would “require CSX[] to modify either the speed at which its\\ntrains travel or their length”). The Ordinance is thus also preempted under the FRSA.\\n\\n C. Agreed Order\\n\\n Having concluded that the Ordinance is preempted, we must next decide whether the\\nAgreed Order is preempted. Like the Ordinance, the Agreed Order unreasonably interferes with\\nrail transportation because it directs CSX to use a certain maintenance method (despite the safety\\nhazards associated with that method), and it covers a subject substantially subsumed by federal\\nregulations. The City argues that CSX cannot use the Termination Act to avoid its obligations\\nunder the Agreed Order. We generally agree that contracts that were “freely negotiated between\\nsophisticated business parties” should not be easily set aside, as they “reflect a market\\ncalculation” that the benefits of the agreement outweigh the costs. See PCS Phosphate Co. v.\\nNorfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212, 221 (4th Cir. 2009).\\n\\n But the circumstances presented in this case convince us that the Agreed Order\\nconstitutes an unreasonable interference with rail transportation and is thus void. The Agreed\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 11\\n\\n\\nOrder was entered into in 1979, over fifteen years before the Termination Act was enacted. And\\nCSX presented evidence that circumstances have materially changed since the agreement was\\nvoluntarily entered into by its predecessor: train loads are heavier and trains are faster now than\\nthey were back then, and the rails in Sebree are now “welded rails” as opposed to “jointed rails.”\\n(Hr’g Tr., R. 19, PageID 432.) CSX’s expert testified that these changes “greatly raise[] the risk\\nof buckled track derailments” by “decrease[ing the] track structure that holds the track in line.”\\n(Id.) Thus, CSX’s ability to perform undercutting, as opposed to surfacing, is “greatly different”\\ntoday than when the Agreed Order was signed. (Id.) We thus conclude that the Agreed Order is\\npreempted under the Termination Act and therefore void as against public policy. See R.R.\\nVentures, Fin. Docket No. 33385, 2000 WL 1125904, at *2 (S.T.B. 2000) (“While the Board\\nencourages privately negotiated agreements, any contractual restrictions that unreasonably\\ninterfere with common carrier operations are deemed void as contrary to public policy.”).\\n\\n The City points to two cases in an attempt to persuade us otherwise: (1) Township of\\nWoodbridge, et al. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 2000 WL 1771044 (S.T.B. 2000), and (2) PCS\\nPhosphate, 559 F.3d at 221. In Woodbridge, the STB held that the rail company was bound by a\\nvoluntary agreement requiring it to curtail the idling of locomotives and the switching of rail cars\\nbetween certain hours. 2000 WL 1771044, at *1, *3. And in PCS Phosphate, the Fourth Circuit\\nheld that an agreement between a rail company and a mine requiring the rail company to pay to\\nrelocate its track if it interfered with mining operations was not preempted by the Termination\\nAct. 559 F.3d at 215, 221. Both cases, however, were careful not to hold that a voluntarily\\nagreement can never be preempted by the Termination Act. See id. at 221 (“This is not to say\\nthat a voluntary agreement could never constitute an ‘unreasonable interference’ with rail\\ntransportation, but the facts of this case indicate that any interference is not unreasonable”);\\nWoodbridge, 2000 WL 1771044, at *3 (noting the rail company “ha[d] not shown that\\nenforcement of its commitments would unreasonably interfere with the railroad’s operations”).\\nUnlike the rail companies in those cases, CSX has shown that the Agreed Order would\\nunreasonably interfere with its rail operations by forcing it to utilize a maintenance method that\\nis no longer safe. We thus conclude that it is void as against public policy.\\n\\f No. 18-5647 CSX Transp. v. City of Sebree, Ky. Page 12\\n\\n\\n D. Scope of the Injunction\\n\\n The only remaining question is whether the scope of the injunction is impermissibly\\nbroad. Even assuming the City did not waive this objection, as CSX argues, we conclude that\\nthe district court did not abuse its discretion in setting the scope of the injunction. The district\\ncourt entered judgment in favor of CSX and permanently enjoined the City from “any\\nenforcement of either the 1966 Ordinance or 1979 Agreed Order or otherwise undertaking any\\naction which would seek to prevent CSX[] from raising its tracks for maintenance purposes\\nwithin the City of Sebree.” (J., R. 26, PageID 641) (emphasis added.) The City objects to the\\nitalicized portion of the judgment, arguing that the injunctive relief should be limited to the\\nCity’s enforcement of the Ordinance and the Agreed Order. The City cites only one case,\\nstanding for the proposition that a “district court should limit the scope of the injunction to the\\nconduct ‘which has been found to have been pursued or is related to the proven unlawful\\nconduct.’” Howe v. City of Akron, 801 F.3d 718, 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting E.E.O.C. v.\\nWilson Metal Casket, Co., 24 F.3d 836, 842 (6th Cir. 1994)).\\n\\n But the scope of the injunction here is “sufficiently tailored to the . . . district court’s\\nfindings . . . .” Id. at 755. The district court found that the Ordinance and the Agreed Order\\nwere preempted because they unreasonably interfered with CSX’s ability to maintain its tracks.\\nAny action that would seek to prevent CSX from raising its tracks for maintenance purposes\\nwould also unreasonably interfere with the railroad’s ability to maintain its tracks. The district\\ncourt did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting such conduct.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n We affirm the judgment of the district court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2075,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4619718,"string":"4,619,718"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessica R. ACOSTA (18-5207); Luis R. Morales-Montanez (18-5212), Defendants-Appellants."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Luis Morales-Montanez"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-15"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-5207/5212"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: KETHLEDGE, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0089p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. > Nos. 18-5207/5212\\n │\\n │\\n JESSICA R. ACOSTA (18-5207); LUIS R. MORALES- │\\n MONTANEZ (18-5212), │\\n Defendants-Appellants. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.\\n No. 5:17-cr-00040-2—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 15, 2019\\n\\n Before: KETHLEDGE, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Russell J. Baldani, BALDANI, ROWLAND & RICHARDSON, Lexington,\\nKentucky, for Appellant in 18-5207. Paul Neel, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant in 18-5212.\\nCharles P. Wisdom, Jr., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Lexington, Kentucky, for\\nAppellee.\\n\\n BUSH, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which KETHLEDGE and WHITE, JJ.,\\njoined. WHITE, J. (pg. 27), delivered a separate concurring opinion in which KETHLEDGE, J.,\\njoined.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. A prosecutor “may strike hard blows” but “is not at\\nliberty to strike foul ones.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). The prosecutor\\ncrossed that line in this case.\\n\\n A jury convicted Luis Morales-Montanez and Jessica Acosta of possession with intent to\\ndistribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, they argue that they were\\nentitled to a judgment of acquittal because the government presented insufficient evidence to\\nsupport their convictions. In the alternative, they argue for a new trial because they allege\\nnumerous errors resulted in a fundamentally unfair proceeding, violating their due process rights.\\nThere was sufficient evidence for their convictions. However, because remarks made by the\\nprosecutor rose to the level of flagrant misconduct and deprived Morales-Montanez and Acosta\\nof a fair trial, we VACATE their convictions and sentences and REMAND for a new trial.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n After a raid on their home, Morales-Montanez and Acosta were indicted for possession\\nwith intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing a detectable amount of\\nmethamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to\\ndistribute marijuana, and possession of firearms in furtherance of the cocaine and marijuana\\noffenses. Both defendants pled guilty to the cocaine, marijuana, and firearms charges, but they\\ncontested the methamphetamine count, which went to trial.\\n\\nA. The Arrests and Searches\\n\\n The following relevant facts were presented at trial, which took place over three days in\\nOctober 2017.\\n\\n In the fall of 2016, Morales-Montanez and Acosta were living with Acosta’s two children\\nat 2428 Larkin Road (the “home”) in Lexington, Kentucky. Acosta had also recently leased an\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\napartment at 2504 Larkin Road (the “apartment”). The manager of the apartment building\\ntestified that she had given Acosta only one key.\\n\\n Morales-Montanez and Acosta were suspected of drug trafficking, so Detective Matthew\\nEvans of the Lexington Police Department began monitoring their movements in fall 2016. On\\nseveral occasions, Evans and his team observed Morales-Montanez and Acosta at the apartment\\nbuilding. Twice, Evans gained entrance to the building and observed them enter the apartment\\nitself. He also observed Morales-Montanez and Acosta driving between the home and the\\napartment building, and he believed they were driving evasively in a manner common to drug\\ndealers who do not wish to be followed. Based on his surveillance, Evans obtained warrants for\\nboth the home and the apartment.\\n\\n Officers from Evans’s team searched the apartment on December 8, 2016. The search\\nrevealed, stashed in a closet, a plastic container filled with approximately two pounds of crystal\\nmethamphetamine. Officers also discovered packing materials, money orders, and air\\nfresheners, which Evans testified were indicative of drug trafficking, in the apartment. While\\nsearching the apartment, officers also found various personal items, including, on a coffee table\\nin the living room, a homework assignment bearing the name of Acosta’s child “J.A.”\\n\\n Also on December 8, Evans arrested Acosta in a traffic stop and went with her to the\\nhome. There, Evans found Morales-Montanez, as well as numerous guns and copious amounts\\nof marijuana and cocaine. The detective also discovered digital scales, packing materials,\\n$42,507 in cash, money orders, a ledger, and a shrine to a statue of Jesus Malverde, who\\nMorales-Montanez later testified at trial is worshiped as a “saint” by marijuana dealers. In\\naddition, Evans found a set of keys to the apartment in the home.\\n\\n Evans read Morales-Montanez and Acosta their rights and questioned them. Confronted\\nwith news of what officers had found in the apartment, Morales-Montanez initially responded\\nthat he knew nothing about the apartment. Shortly thereafter, Morales-Montanez admitted he\\nhad been to the apartment with Acosta, but he continued to deny knowledge of the\\nmethamphetamine. But Morales-Montanez very quickly admitted to dealing in marijuana and\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\ncocaine: in fact, he called himself a “weed man” who had recently expanded into cocaine to beef\\nup his income for the Christmas season.\\n\\n Morales-Montanez and Acosta were detained pending trial. While detained, Morales-\\nMontanez was temporarily housed with a man named Brian Barnes. Barnes was a former\\nmethamphetamine trafficker serving a seventeen-year prison term.\\n\\n We will now pick up the story with Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s version.\\n\\nB. The Defense Theory of the Case\\n\\n Acosta chose not to testify, but Morales-Montanez and Barnes testified for the defense.\\nThe defense presented the following version of events.\\n\\n Acosta knew that Morales-Montanez was running a marijuana operation out of the home,\\nand she was not happy about it. When their relationship was at a crisis point and Morales-\\nMontanez was visiting California, Acosta decided to rent the apartment. However, after Acosta\\nsigned the lease, she and Morales-Montanez patched up their relationship, and Acosta decided to\\nkeep living at the home and to sublet the apartment.\\n\\n One day in late October 2016, Acosta was hanging flyers advertising the apartment at a\\ngrocery store when Brian Barnes (Morales-Montanez’s future cellmate) noticed her and\\nintroduced himself. When Barnes learned that Acosta was seeking to sublet her apartment, he\\ntold her he wanted to rent. Acosta took Barnes to the apartment that day and showed him\\naround. They agreed on a monthly rent of $625, and Barnes gave Acosta a $1,500 up-front\\npayment.\\n\\n As it turned out, Barnes was a large-scale methamphetamine dealer. He maintained\\nmultiple addresses to store drugs and drug paraphernalia, and he needed to move out of his\\nprimary residence because his roommates had deserted him after they learned he was having\\ndrugs shipped to him there. Barnes maintained that that was why he was looking for an\\napartment when he met Acosta. Barnes and Morales-Montanez both also testified at trial that\\nneither Morales-Montanez nor Acosta was aware of Barnes’s profession or of his reason for\\nrenting the apartment.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n Soon Barnes fell behind on his rent. On several occasions, Morales-Montanez and\\nAcosta went to the apartment to try to find him, but he was never there. On one visit, Morales-\\nMontanez and Acosta did come across a stash of guns that Barnes had apparently left in the\\napartment. In place of the missed rent payment, Morales-Montanez took the guns back with him\\nto the home.\\n\\n Morales-Montanez testified that he did not recall ever having driven in an evasive\\nmanner between the home and the apartment. He also testified that the reason he had initially\\ndenied knowing anything about the apartment when questioned by Evans was that he had been\\nafraid of getting in trouble for taking Barnes’s guns.\\n\\n Despite his stated reason for renting the apartment, Barnes testified that he went there\\nonly twice: once with Acosta when they were discussing terms and once very early in the\\nmorning on November 5, 2016. According to Barnes, he received a warning phone call on\\nNovember 4 from a fellow drug dealer, Robert Griffett, who had been detained by the police and\\nhad tipped them to Barnes’s activities before being released. Fearing that the police would seize\\nhis methamphetamine stash from his residence, Barnes immediately packed it into a plastic\\ncontainer and took it, along with his drug packaging materials and his guns, to the apartment.\\n\\n Barnes did not evade the police for long. He was arrested on November 7, 2016, pled\\nguilty to drug offenses, and was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment, to be served at eighty-\\nfive percent for a prison term of seventeen years.\\n\\n Then Morales-Montanez and Acosta were also arrested and charged. Morales-Montanez\\nhappened to be housed with Barnes in jail for several months beginning in early 2017. He had\\nnever met Barnes before that point or known that Barnes was the sublessee of the apartment.\\nAlthough Barnes and Morales-Montanez testified that they never talked about their cases, Barnes\\nstated that through his connections on the outside, he became aware that Morales-Montanez and\\nAcosta had been charged with possession of the very methamphetamine he had secreted in the\\napartment. In January 2017, Barnes asked his attorney to set up a meeting with the prosecutor so\\nthat Barnes could put Morales-Montanez and Acosta in the clear. After the meeting—which\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\ntook place in July 2017—Barnes did not feel that his efforts had been successful, so he wrote to\\ndefense counsel1 and signed on as a defense witness.\\n\\n At trial, Barnes identified defense Exhibit 1 as the container of methamphetamine he said\\nhe had left in the apartment. He testified that he had earlier told a law-enforcement officer he\\nhad wrapped the methamphetamine in “clothes” before leaving it in the apartment, although he\\ndid not remember “[w]hat kind of clothes.” R. 130, PageID 1230. As presented at trial,\\nhowever, the container of methamphetamine was not wrapped in clothes, and the detective who\\nfound the container testified that it had not been “wrapped in anything” at the time. Id. at\\nPageID 1141, 1144.\\n\\nC. Defense Counsel’s First Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal\\n\\n At the close of the evidence, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing\\nthat no reasonable jury could convict Morales-Montanez and Acosta of possession of\\nmethamphetamine on the evidence presented. The court denied the motion.\\n\\nD. The Homework Issue and the Post-Trial Motion\\n\\n During its deliberations, the jury sent out a note asking to see United States Exhibit 6,\\nwhich was a copy of the homework assignment that officers had found in the apartment. The\\ncourt responded by informing the jury that the homework had not been introduced in evidence,\\nso the jury would have to rely on its memory of the homework during deliberations. Later, the\\ncourt realized that the evidence had, in fact, been admitted; the court scheduled a hearing with\\nthe attorneys to determine what to do.\\n\\n Shortly thereafter, Acosta filed, and Morales-Montanez joined, a motion for a new trial\\nand in the alternative for a judgment of acquittal. The memorandum in support of the motion\\nargued that (1) the district court had erred in keeping the homework exhibit from the jury and\\n(2) the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to convict Morales-Montanez and Acosta.\\n\\n\\n\\n 1Morales-Montanez and Acosta each had an attorney. We will refer to either or both simply as “defense\\ncounsel.”\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n The district court held a hearing and denied the motion, reasoning that the homework\\nexhibit was not exculpatory, so any error was harmless, and that the evidence was sufficient to\\nsupport the convictions.\\n\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n\\n On appeal, Morales-Montanez and Acosta again argue that the evidence was insufficient\\nto support their convictions, and they also argue that numerous alleged errors at trial rendered the\\nproceeding fundamentally unfair. They ask this court to remand with instructions to dismiss the\\nmethamphetamine count with prejudice or to reverse the district court’s denial of the new trial\\nmotion. Although Morales-Montanez and Acosta do not explain (and cite no cases explaining)\\nwhy any of their theories of error would entitle them to a dismissal with prejudice of the charges\\nagainst them, the substantive arguments in their briefing make clear that they believe the district\\ncourt erred in denying their motion for a judgment of acquittal. Therefore, we will begin by\\naddressing whether Morales-Montanez and Acosta are entitled to a judgment of acquittal on\\nsufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds.\\n\\nA. Sufficiency of the Evidence\\n\\n We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal based\\non the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Humphrey, 279 F.3d 372, 378 (6th Cir.\\n2002). In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and ask\\nwhether any rational trier of fact could have found Morales-Montanez and Acosta guilty beyond\\na reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). In answering that question,\\nwe must not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations. United States v. Chavis,\\n296 F.3d 450, 455 (6th Cir. 2002). Instead, we must draw all reasonable inferences, including\\ninferences from circumstantial evidence, in favor of the government. United States v. Rozin,\\n664 F.3d 1052, 1058 (6th Cir. 2012). “Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a\\nconviction and such evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.”\\nUnited States v. Wettstain, 618 F.3d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\n Morales-Montanez and Acosta argue that no rational trier of fact could have found they\\nconstructively possessed the methamphetamine found in the apartment.2 The district court gave\\nthe following instruction on constructive possession:\\n\\n The government does not necessarily have to prove that the defendants physically\\n possessed the mixture or substance containing methamphetamine for you to find\\n them guilty of this crime. The law recognizes two kinds of possession, actual\\n possession or constructive possession. Either one of these, if proved by the\\n government, is enough to convict.\\n\\n ....\\n To establish constructive possession, the government must prove that the\\n defendants had the right to exercise physical control over the mixture and knew\\n they had the right and that they intended to exercise physical control over the\\n mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine at\\n some time, either directly or through other persons.\\n ....\\n\\n But understand just being present where something is located does not\\n equal possession. The government must prove that the defendant had actual or\\n constructive possession of the mixture or substance containing methamphetamine,\\n and that they knew they did for you to find them guilty of this crime. This, of\\n course, is all for you to decide.\\n\\nR. 131, PageID 1454–55. The district court’s instruction accurately articulated the elements of\\nconstructive possession. See United States v. Jenkins, 593 F.3d 480, 484 (6th Cir. 2010).\\n\\n Although the evidence against Morales-Montanez and Acosta was far from\\noverwhelming, it was sufficient for a rational jury to convict them of constructive possession\\nwith intent to distribute. The government presented the following evidence. (1) Detective Evans\\nobserved Morales-Montanez and Acosta at the apartment but (2) detectives had never seen\\nBarnes—or anyone else—there. (3) Also, on multiple occasions, Evans or members of his team\\nfollowed Morales-Montanez and Acosta driving between the apartment and the home, and Evans\\nbelieved, based on his experience investigating drug dealers, that they were driving in an evasive\\nmanner to avoid being followed. (4) When Acosta leased the apartment, she was given only one\\n\\n\\n 2Morales-Montanez and Acosta do not dispute that a rational jury could find the “intent” element of\\npossession with intent to distribute if it could find the “possession” element satisfied.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nkey—according to the apartment manager—and yet a ring of multiple keys to the apartment was\\ndiscovered in Evans’s search of the home. That key ring made less plausible Morales-\\nMontanez’s claim that he and Acosta always visited the apartment together.\\n\\n In support of acquittal, by contrast, the defense presented the testimony of Barnes and\\nMorales-Montanez, who both swore that Barnes was responsible for the methamphetamine in the\\napartment. But the jury heard testimony that Barnes was housed with Morales-Montanez in jail,\\nand the jury could have believed that the cellmates came to some agreement by which Barnes\\nwould take responsibility for the methamphetamine. If the jury found these two not to be\\ncredible—a determination that we are not permitted to second-guess, see Chavis, 296 F.3d at\\n455—then the government’s case would look convincing.\\n\\n In addition, several inconsistencies or questionable assertions appeared in Barnes’s or\\nMorales-Montanez’s testimony, and the jury could have attributed them either to innocent\\nmistakes or to lies, as it chose. For example, the government highlighted evidence that Barnes\\nhad received a shipment of methamphetamine at his residence after the date when he claimed to\\nhave moved his drugs, guns, and paraphernalia to the apartment. The appearance of the\\nmethamphetamine at trial—not wrapped in clothes as Barnes had described—also discredited\\nBarnes’s story. Furthermore, the jury could have chosen not to believe that Morales-Montanez\\ninitially denied knowledge of the apartment because he feared trouble over taking Barnes’s guns.\\nThe jury could have believed that he had something more serious to hide.\\n\\n In sum, a significant amount of evidence tied Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\\napartment, and the jury was free to reject in total Barnes’s and Morales-Montanez’s insistence\\nthat Morales-Montanez and Acosta had nothing to do with the methamphetamine found in the\\napartment. Although this was not a straightforward case with direct proof of possession, we\\nmust view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. In that light, we conclude\\nthat a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Morales-Montanez\\nand Acosta “had the right to exercise physical control over the [methamphetamine]” and\\n“intended to exercise physical control over the [methamphetamine],” as the district court\\ninstructed the jury. The district court did not err in denying the motion for a judgment of\\nacquittal or for a new trial on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nB. Fairness of the Trial\\n\\n Notwithstanding that there was enough evidence to support the convictions, we\\nnonetheless vacate them and remand for a new trial because of numerous errors relating to the\\nprosecutor’s misconduct at trial that, considered cumulatively, deprived Morales-Montanez and\\nAcosta of a fair proceeding.\\n\\n Morales-Montanez and Acosta allege that three categories of error occurred during trial\\nand rendered it fundamentally unfair. First, they argue that the district court improperly allowed\\nthe prosecutor to question witnesses about the penalty for the methamphetamine count. Second,\\nthey argue that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Morales-Montanez and the prosecutor’s\\nclosing argument contained numerous prejudicial questions and remarks. And third, they argue\\nthey suffered prejudice when the district court prevented the jury from seeing the homework\\nexhibit during deliberations.\\n\\n Between his cross-examination of Morales-Montanez and his closing argument, the\\nprosecutor made nine improper and prejudicial remarks and questions that resulted in a\\nfundamentally unfair trial. Because we find that this prosecutorial misconduct entitles Morales-\\nMontanez and Acosta to a new trial, we need not address the prosecutor’s questions regarding\\nthe penalty or the homework issue. See United States v. Francis, 170 F.3d 546, 548 (6th Cir.\\n1999) (remanding for a new trial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct and not addressing the\\nappellants’ remaining arguments).\\n\\n 1. Standard of Review\\n\\n Not one of the prosecutor’s statements drew an objection from trial counsel. Therefore,\\nwe may remand for a new trial only if plain error occurred. United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d\\n1380, 1383 (6th Cir. 1994). Plain error has three elements: “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and\\n(3) that affect[s] substantial rights.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997)\\n(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Olano,\\n507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). “An error affects substantial rights if it affect[s] the outcome of the\\ncase.” United States v. Walker, No. 18-1256, 2019 WL 326483, at *3 (6th Cir. Jan. 24, 2019)\\n(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Teh, 535 F.3d 511, 516 (6th Cir.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n2008)). “If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to\\nnotice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or\\npublic reputation of judicial proceedings.” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 (alteration in original)\\n(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 732).\\n\\n To determine whether the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct was “so exceptionally flagrant\\nthat it constitutes plain error, and is grounds for reversal even [though] the defendant did not\\nobject to it,” United States v. Carter, 236 F.3d 777, 783 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Carroll, 26 F.3d\\nat 1385 n.6), we assess four factors:\\n\\n [1] the degree to which the remarks complained of have a tendency to mislead the\\n jury and to prejudice the accused; [2] whether they were isolated or extensive; [3]\\n whether they were deliberately or accidentally placed before the jury[;] and [4]\\n the strength of the competent proofs introduced to establish the guilt of the\\n accused.\\n\\nCarroll, 26 F.3d at 1384 (quoting United States v. Leon, 534 F.2d 667, 679 (6th Cir. 1976)).\\nMorales-Montanez and Acosta argue that the prosecutor committed flagrant misconduct in this\\ncase.3\\n\\n 2. The Prosecutor’s Misconduct\\n\\n a. Vouching or Bolstering\\n\\n First, Morales-Montanez and Acosta argue that the prosecutor improperly vouched for or\\nbolstered the testimony of government witnesses. “Improper vouching occurs when a prosecutor\\nsupports the credibility of a witness by indicating a personal belief in the witness’s\\ncredibility . . . .” Francis, 170 F.3d at 550 (citations omitted). Similarly, “[b]olstering occurs\\nwhen the prosecutor implies that the witness’s testimony is corroborated by evidence known to\\nthe government but not known to the jury.” Id. at 551 (citation omitted).\\n\\n\\n 3Morales-Montanez and Acosta also argue that we may reverse even if the misconduct was not flagrant,\\nbecause this court has reversed convictions for non-flagrant misconduct where defense counsel objected to some of\\nthe comments even if not to all; “the proof of the defendant’s guilt [was] not overwhelming;” and “the trial court\\nfailed to cure the impropriety by failing to admonish the jury.” Francis, 170 F.3d at 550 (citations omitted).\\nHowever, here, defense counsel did not object to any of the improper comments. Therefore, we apply the flagrancy\\nanalysis.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n During closing argument, the prosecutor made the following comments. First, in\\nrecapping the testimony of the detective who had found the methamphetamine in the apartment,\\nthe prosecutor stated: “Detective Bowles who was here, he’s testified very well, he understood\\nand remembered everything he did. Mr. Barnes told you that [the methamphetamine] was\\nwrapped in clothes. No, it wasn’t. As Detective Bowles testified, it was there, he picked it up\\nand he brought it back down.” R. 131, PageID 1391 (emphasis added). Second, the prosecutor\\nlater revisited the subject of Bowles’s finding the methamphetamine:\\n\\n Now, make sure we put the evidence in the proper perspective. When Mr.\\n Barnes testified, I asked him, did you say that the meth was wrapped in clothes?\\n Yes. He said, I said that, that’s what I did. Nobody made that up. It was [another\\n law-enforcement officer, who had interviewed Barnes after his arrest] that came\\n in that said, he told me it was wrapped in clothes. Detective Bowles, a fine young\\n man, picked it up and there it was.\\n\\nId. at PageID 1435 (emphasis added). Third, Morales-Montanez and Acosta take issue with the\\nprosecutor’s characterization of Evans’s work on the case: “Based upon the fine work of\\nDetective Evans, based upon the search warrants that were executed, the interviews that were\\ndone, the two pounds of methamphetamine worth $20,000 is off the street.” Id. at PageID 1402\\n(emphasis added).\\n\\n Although these comments were not direct comments on the detectives’ truthfulness,\\nsaying a witness is a “fine young man” implies that the speaker has a favorable view of the\\nwitness’s truthfulness. Analogously, in United States v. Modena, 302 F.3d 626, 634–35 (6th Cir.\\n2002), we found that a prosecutor’s description of a government witness as a “law-abiding man”\\nwas improper vouching because “a law-abiding man does not, of course, commit perjury.” We\\ndo not mean to suggest that every favorable comment on a government witness constitutes\\nprosecutorial misconduct, but in each case, the effect of such comments must be considered in\\nthe context of the prosecutor’s other statements, the defense arguments, and the evidence\\npresented at trial. See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 16 (1985) (“[E]ach case necessarily\\nturns on its own facts.” (citation omitted)). Here, the positive description of Bowles strikingly\\ndiffered from the prosecutor’s negative portrayals of the defense witnesses, as detailed later.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\n Moreover, we agree with Morales-Montanez and Acosta that the prosecutor’s\\ncharacterization of Bowles’s testimony constituted improper vouching and bolstering. By\\nopining that Bowles had testified “very well,” the prosecutor suggested that he believed\\nBowles’s testimony. And by stating that Bowles “remembered everything he did,” the\\nprosecutor made a factual assertion about Bowles’s memory and reliability that had no basis in\\nthe evidence presented at trial and therefore invited the jury to believe Bowles simply on the\\nprosecutor’s say-so. See Hodge v. Hurley, 426 F.3d 368, 378–79 (6th Cir. 2005) (noting that\\ncomments on credibility “not coupled with a more detailed analysis of the evidence . . . convey\\nan impression to the jury that they should simply trust the State’s judgment” that a witness is or\\nis not credible); cf. Washington v. Hofbauer, 228 F.3d 689, 700 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding\\nmisconduct where the prosecutor suggested a government witness’s story had “been consistent\\nover time,” but “there was no evidence supporting that factual assertion”). In a case where\\ncredibility judgments were almost certainly determinative—because all of the government’s\\nevidence of guilt was circumstantial—such a comment may have been highly prejudicial. See\\nHodge, 426 F.3d at 376.\\n\\n The reference to Evans as having done “fine work” also suggested that the prosecutor\\nviewed Evans as an ethical detective and honest witness. In Walker v. Morrow, 458 F. App’x\\n475, 489–90 (6th Cir. 2012), we held that a prosecutor engaged in improper vouching when\\n(among other comments) she told the jury that a law-enforcement officer had “done an excellent\\njob in this case . . . and we are just asking you to find the truth.” The statement in Walker more\\nclosely tied the officer’s work to the result the prosecutor wanted the jury to reach than the\\nprosecutor’s statement about Evans in this case, but the comments are otherwise similarly\\nphrased, and we find Walker’s reasoning persuasive. Although not overtly a comment on\\ncredibility and perhaps not harmful on its own, the comment on Evans contributed to the overall\\npicture the prosecutor was painting of trustworthy government witnesses, a sharp contrast to the\\npicture he painted of the defense witnesses.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n b. Attacks on Defense Witnesses’ Credibility\\n\\n During his closing argument, the prosecutor repeatedly made known his opinion that the\\ntwo key defense witnesses were not credible. First, the prosecutor offered the following thoughts\\non Barnes:\\n\\n In between the time [Barnes] said he was called by [Robert Griffett, who Barnes\\n claimed warned him against law-enforcement officers] and the time he got\\n arrested, he got yet another package of methamphetamine to the same address\\n where he received the three previous packages. If he was such a smart drug\\n dealer and trying to avoid the police, why would he still have methamphetamine\\n coming to his place? Because he’s lying. He is lying about taking that stuff over\\n [to the apartment].\\n\\nR. 131 at PageID 1396 (emphasis added). Near the end of his closing argument, the prosecutor\\nattacked Barnes again: “Is he a huge drug dealer? Yes, he is. Huge. Is he a weapons trafficker?\\nYes. Is he a money launderer?4 Yes. Should he be entitled to any credibility whatsoever? Not\\nat all. Zero.” Id. at PageID 1400 (emphasis added). And shortly thereafter, the prosecutor was\\naddressing Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s argument that they did not put the\\nmethamphetamine in the apartment when he stated:\\n\\n The only people ever seen going into Apartment 172 as seen by Detective Evans,\\n one and two [i.e., Morales-Montanez and Acosta]. And that’s it. There is not a\\n shred of evidence that allows the sight of anybody else to go in there. Brian\\n Barnes is a proven liar, don’t believe anything he had to say.\\n\\nId. at PageID 1401 (emphasis added).\\n\\n The prosecutor also commented unfavorably on Morales-Montanez’s credibility: “Luis\\nMorales [sic], the worshiper of a deity of a drug trafficking entity who prays for protection from\\npolice, prosecutors, court systems and juries. Is he entitled to any credibility for what he said?\\nNo, not at all.” Id. at PageID 1400 (emphasis added).\\n\\n\\n 4We are in the dark regarding to what the “money launderer” comment referred. Barnes’s testimony\\ncontained no discussion of money laundering or similar activity. Although its prejudicial effect was probably\\nminimal (because the jury already knew Barnes had admitted committing serious drug crimes), the prosecutor’s\\nreference to money laundering appears to have been an allusion to real or imagined facts not in evidence. The\\n“weapons trafficker” comment probably referred to Barnes’s practice of sending shipments of guns to California as\\n“blessings,” a show of appreciation to his methamphetamine suppliers. R. 130, PageID 1221–22.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\n “It is patently improper for a prosecutor either to comment on the credibility of a witness\\nor to express a personal belief that a particular witness is lying.” Hodge, 426 F.3d at 378\\n(citations omitted).\\n\\n [T]wo separate harms . . . arise from such misconduct. First, such comments can\\n convey the impression that evidence not presented to the jury, but known to the\\n prosecutor, supports the charges . . . . Second, the prosecutor’s opinion carries\\n with it the imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the\\n Government’s judgment rather than its own view of the evidence.\\n\\nId. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Young, 470 U.S. at 18–19). The second concern\\nis particularly prominent when “statements by the prosecutor [are] not coupled with a more\\ndetailed analysis of the evidence actually adduced at trial.” Id.\\n\\n Here, the prosecutor’s comments on credibility were especially damaging because the\\ndefense strategy was premised upon getting the jury to believe Morales-Montanez and Barnes.\\nAll of the evidence tying Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the methamphetamine was\\ncircumstantial. To acquit, the jury had only to find Morales-Montanez and Barnes’s stories\\ncredible. The jury did not have to disbelieve the government’s witnesses: it could have\\nreconciled both sides’ testimony by ascribing an innocent interpretation to each time the\\ndetectives testified they had seen Morales-Montanez and Acosta at the apartment. As the district\\ncourt noted in its oral ruling on Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s motion for a judgment of\\nacquittal at the close of the evidence, “it really is a case of credibility for the jury to decide.”\\nR. 130, PageID 1367.\\n\\n We have reversed in the past based on comments similar to the prosecutor’s here. In\\nHodge, we reversed a denial of a writ of habeas corpus to a defendant convicted of child rape\\n“where the only evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction was a jury determination that the\\ncomplaining witness was more credible than the defendant,” and the prosecutor had made\\nnumerous improper comments, including assertions that defense witnesses were lying,\\nsuggestions that the jury could consider character evidence as evidence of guilt, and\\nmisrepresentations of the evidence. 426 F.3d at 371. Among the improper comments was the\\nHodge prosecutor’s statement in his rebuttal argument that “[the defendant] is not what he\\nportrays himself to be, and that is because he is lying to extricate himself from what he’s done.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\n[The complaining witness] is absolutely believable, her family is absolutely believable.” Id. at\\n379 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).\\n\\n In finding that the defense counsel’s failure to object to any of the comments constituted\\nineffective assistance of counsel, we found “a reasonable probability that the result of the\\nproceeding would have been different” had the defense counsel made timely objections. Id. at\\n376. Here, the same logic dictates that there is a reasonable probability the prosecutor’s\\ncomments affected the result at Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s trial: as in Hodge, the jury’s\\ndecision as to guilt or innocence turned on credibility assessments.\\n\\n The government defends the comments on the basis that inconsistencies in Barnes’s story\\nor his conduct created “good reasons to doubt his truthfulness.”5 United States Br. at 17. But\\nsuch doubts do not confer a blanket license to impugn a witness’s credibility. Instead, the\\nprosecutor should highlight inconsistencies with a “detailed analysis of the evidence.” Hodge,\\n426 F.3d at 378; see also Francis, 170 F.3d at 552.\\n\\n It is true that the prosecutor’s comment that Barnes “was lying about taking” the\\nmethamphetamine to the apartment followed a brief rehash of evidence. Specifically, the\\nprosecutor referred to testimony that Barnes had received drugs at his home address even after\\nhaving been alerted to the danger of doing so. That would seem inconsistent with Barnes’s story\\nthat he wanted to move all his drugs and paraphernalia to the apartment as soon as he knew the\\npolice might be after him. Nevertheless, that apparent inconsistency did not inexorably lead to\\nthe conclusion that Barnes was lying. The jury could have reasonably viewed the mailed-\\nmethamphetamine fiasco as the result of Barnes’s shortsightedness in directing drug deliveries\\nbefore his arrest, just as it could have viewed any apparent inconsistencies in his testimony as a\\nresult of mistake or forgetfulness. It was improper for the prosecutor to announce that he had\\nmade up his own mind about the reason for Barnes’s testimony.\\n\\n\\n\\n 5Specifically,the government stresses that Barnes (1) was inconsistent in his recollection of who had called\\nhim and warned him about the police—at trial, he testified that Robert Griffett called him, but in a November 2016\\npost-arrest interview with a law-enforcement officer, Barnes had stated that a man named “J.T.” called him;\\n(2) Barnes did not take responsibility for the methamphetamine or mention Morales-Montanez, Acosta, or the\\napartment at the time of his arrest or in either of two November 2016 post-arrest interviews.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\n The prosecutor’s next statement, that Barnes “[s]hould [not] be entitled to any credibility\\nwhatsoever,” did not accompany a detailed recitation of evidence; it was simply advice to the\\njury about whom to believe. Indeed, the statement suggested that the jury should disbelieve\\nBarnes because he had been involved in criminal activity. Although Federal Rule of Evidence\\n609(a)(1) allows an attorney to impeach a witness’s character for truthfulness by introducing\\nevidence that the witness has a conviction for a crime punishable “by imprisonment for more\\nthan one year”—such as Barnes’s methamphetamine conviction—the prosecutor did not\\nintroduce the conviction as impeachment evidence, and he did not reference the conviction in\\nstating that Barnes was not credible. Thus, the statement simply assumed that Barnes was not\\ncredible because of his criminal past without explaining why that past was relevant to\\ntruthfulness.\\n\\n The third statement about Barnes, that he was “a proven liar,” was also uttered with no\\nevidentiary context. The prosecutor simply tacked it onto his statement that no one other than\\nMorales-Montanez and Acosta had been seen at the apartment during the relevant time period.\\nIndeed, the prosecutor’s assertion that “[t]here is not a shred of evidence that allows the sight of\\nanybody else to go in” the apartment came close to mischaracterization. Barnes’s testimony, of\\ncourse, was evidence that someone else had gone into the apartment, even if it was not\\neyewitness evidence from a detective that someone besides Morales-Montanez or Acosta had\\nbeen “sight[ed]” there. The prosecutor was asking the jury to disregard crucial evidence that\\nsomeone besides the two defendants had been at the apartment because, in the prosecutor’s view,\\nthat evidence came from a liar.\\n\\n We also note that the “proven liar” assertion came within a transcript page of the\\nprosecutor’s “fine work” vouching for Evans. The close proximity of a favorable comment on a\\ngovernment witness to an unfavorable comment on a defense witness heightens the prejudicial\\nnature of both. See Hodge, 426 F.3d at 379–80.\\n\\n Finally, the comment that Morales-Montanez was not “entitled to any credibility” was\\nuntethered to any relevant evidence suggesting untruthfulness. We will address the prosecutor’s\\ncomments about Morales-Montanez thoroughly in the next section, but here we note that, again,\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\nthe prosecutor transgressed the bounds of permissible argument by telling the jury it should not\\nbelieve a defense witness.\\n\\n In sum, the prosecutor committed misconduct by repeatedly expressing his personal\\nopinion that the defense witnesses were not credible. See id. at 378.\\n\\n c. Comments on Morales-Montanez’s Prayers and the Ten Commandments\\n\\n The prosecutor’s references to Morales-Montanez’s worship of the Jesus Malverde statue\\nconstitute their own category of misconduct. First, in questioning Morales-Montanez about the\\nshrine found in the home, the prosecutor conducted the following exchange:\\n\\n Q. You said that—that idol that you worship there is an idol that drug traffickers\\n worship, correct?\\n A. Yes, sir.\\n\\n ....\\n Q. And you would say prayers for protection, right?\\n A. Yes, sir.\\n Q. Pr[a]yers from the police so they don’t get to follow you around, right?\\n A. Yes, sir.\\n Q. Did you say a little prayer before you walked into the courtroom today to your\\n patron saint?\\n A. Did I pray to my saint?\\n Q. Yeah. Did you pray to that idol?\\n A. I prayed to the man upstairs.\\n Q. Uh-huh. But you didn’t, like, pray to the drug trafficker’s god that maybe the\\n jury would believe me, right?\\n A. No, sir.\\n ....\\n Q. You consider yourself Catholic?\\n\\n ....\\n A. I don’t consider myself Catholic, I’m just a Catholic believer.\\n Q. Catholic believer? Do you understand that there is a Commandment that says\\n thou shall not have any god before me?\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\n A. Yes, I understand.\\n Q. But yet you prayed to the idol for drug traffickers for protection?\\n A. I did.\\n\\nR. 130, PageID 1288–89.\\n\\n In closing, the prosecutor again emphasized Morales-Montanez’s prayers:\\n\\n Another shocking thing yesterday was the defendant, Mr. Morales’ [sic]\\n testimony. Thou shall not have any Gods before me. I’ve never ever seen a\\n defendant admit to worshiping Malverde. I’m not going to call it a saint, I’m\\n going to use the word and call it a deity. He worships a deity . . . . He prayed for\\n protection from police. He prays that he doesn’t get caught.\\n For whatever religious or philosophical reasons, he’s still trying to push\\n away from Apartment 172. I wonder how many prayers he has said to Malverde\\n before he walked into the courtroom yesterday. I wonder if what’s going through\\n his mind this morning was, I’m going to say another prayer for protection from\\n the jurors of Central Kentucky.\\n ....\\n\\n Luis Morales [sic], the worshiper of a deity of a drug trafficking entity\\n who prays for protection from police, prosecutors, court systems and juries. Is he\\n entitled to any credibility for what he said? No, not at all.\\n\\nR. 131, PageID 1398–99, 1400.\\n\\n We agree with Morales-Montanez and Acosta that Morales-Montanez’s actual and\\nsupposed prayers to Malverde were “utterly irrelevant” to the question of guilt. Morales-\\nMontanez Br. at 40. What is more, the prosecutor’s statement in closing argument that he\\n“wonder[ed] how many prayers [Morales-Montanez] ha[d] said to Malverde before he walked\\ninto the courtroom yesterday” conflicted with the evidence, because Morales-Montanez had\\ndenied during cross-examination that he prayed for the jury to believe him.\\n\\n In the same vein, we can “find no nonprejudicial explanation” for the prosecutor’s\\nreferences to the Ten Commandments. United States v. Grey, 422 F.2d 1043, 1045 (6th Cir.\\n1970). Morales-Montanez’s adherence or nonadherence to a Commandment had nothing to do\\nwith whether he possessed methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. Furthermore, the\\npart of the closing argument in which the prosecutor invoked the Ten Commandments and stated\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\nthat he had “never ever seen a defendant admit to worshiping Malverde” appears to have been an\\nattempt to arouse the “passions and prejudices” of the jury against Morales-Montanez by\\nsuggesting that he was a particularly reprobate criminal defendant. Bates v. Bell, 402 F.3d 635,\\n642 (6th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).\\n\\n The government nonetheless suggests that the prayers to Malverde were relevant because,\\n“[b]ased on Morales’s [sic] admitted worship of Malverde, the prosecutor could reasonably infer\\nthat Morales [sic] was not restricting his prayers for protection to only his marijuana trade” and\\nthat therefore his denials of any connection with the methamphetamine were not credible.\\nUnited States Br. at 16. This argument has two flaws.\\n\\n First, if that is the inference the prosecutor was making, the prosecutor was also\\nassuming—and asking the jury to assume—that Morales-Montanez in fact was involved in the\\nmethamphetamine trade. Otherwise, he would have no reason to pray for protection in that trade.\\nThat assumption puts the cart before the horse. The only evidence presented at trial that\\nMorales-Montanez was dealing methamphetamine was the two pounds found in the apartment,\\nand it was precisely Morales-Montanez’s connection to those two pounds that the prosecutor\\nsought to prove. More likely, the prosecutor was asking the jury to infer that Morales-Montanez\\nwas a methamphetamine dealer because he worshiped the Malverde statue—an unreasonable\\ninference, because the government admits that Morales-Montanez described Malverde as the\\nsaint of marijuana traffickers (as Morales-Montanez testified, the word “Malverde” in Spanish\\nmeans “bad green”).6 R. 130, PageID 1276. More likely still, the prosecutor was merely\\nattempting to put Morales-Montanez in a bad light as someone steeped in drug culture,\\ncontinually violating the first Commandment.\\n\\n That leads to the second point: if the prosecutor was attempting to impeach Morales-\\nMontanez’s credibility, he was doing so based on inadmissible considerations. American\\n\\n\\n 6One of the government’s witnesses testified at trial that Malverde was “the patron saint of drug dealers”\\nand was “commonly seen” in connection with “some of the larger scale drug traffickers.” R. 126, PageID 782. That\\ntestimony could suggest that the “saint” was associated with drugs other than marijuana. However, no testimony\\nwas presented tying Malverde to methamphetamine specifically, and even the government notes that the statue was\\n“an indicator of marijuana activity.” United States Br. at 16. Of course, Morales-Montanez had already pled guilty\\nto marijuana activity, and it was not in issue at trial.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\n“[c]ourts universally condemn the injection of religion into legal proceedings.” United States v.\\nRoach, 502 F.3d 425, 436 (6th Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks\\nomitted) (quoting Hicks v. Collins, 384 F.3d 204, 223 (6th Cir. 2004)). Here, the prosecutor did\\nmore than “briefly highlight[] [Morales-Montanez’s] testimony” with respect to Malverde, as the\\ngovernment argues; he also elicited testimony on Morales-Montanez’s Catholic beliefs and then\\nimplied that Morales-Montanez was violating a biblical Commandment. United States Br. at 16.\\nUnder Federal Rule of Evidence 610, “[e]vidence of a witness’s religious beliefs or opinions is\\nnot admissible to attack or support the witness’s credibility.” By the same token, credibility\\narguments based on religious affiliations or practices are not favored. Cf. United States v.\\nRogers, 556 F.3d 1130, 1141 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Rule 610 and assuming without deciding\\nthat a closing-argument reference to a government witness’s having worn a cross was improper).\\n\\n We hold that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct through his questions and remarks\\nabout the Malverde statue.\\n\\n 3. Flagrancy\\n\\n Having concluded that nine remarks by the prosecutor were improper,7 we ask whether\\nthey were flagrant and therefore warrant reversal despite defense counsel’s failure to preserve\\nobjections. See Carter, 236 F.3d at 783. They were and they do.\\n\\n As stated, when determining whether prosecutorial misconduct is flagrant and amounts to\\nplain error, we consider four factors. See Carroll, 26 F.3d at 1384. Here, all four of the factors\\nsupport a finding of flagrancy.\\n\\n a. The Tendency of the Remarks to Mislead the Jury and to Prejudice the\\n Accused\\n\\n All of the challenged remarks had “a tendency to mislead the jury” or “to prejudice the\\naccused.” Id. (quoting Leon, 534 F.2d at 679). First, the remarks were prejudicial to Morales-\\n\\n 7Three vouching or bolstering remarks; three attacks on Barnes’s credibility; and three attacks on Morales-\\nMontanez’s worship of the statue—one line of questioning during cross-examination and two sections of the closing\\nargument, the second of which was also an attack on Morales-Montanez’s credibility. We note that no particular\\nnumber of improper comments marks the boundary between flagrant impropriety and non-flagrant impropriety.\\nInstead, plain-error determinations are driven by the unique facts of each case. Young, 470 U.S. at 16.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\nMontanez and Acosta because they implied or asserted that a government witness was\\ntrustworthy, a defense witness was lying, or a defense witness had broken one of the Ten\\nCommandments. The prejudicial effect of the remarks accrued to Acosta, who did not testify, as\\nwell as to Morales-Montanez, because the theory of the defense was the same for both.\\n\\n Second, at least two of the remarks were misleading. One misleading remark was the\\nprosecutor’s assertion that Detective Bowles—who testified that he had found the\\nmethamphetamine and that it had not been wrapped in clothes as Barnes had described—\\n“remembered everything he did.” That assertion suggested that Bowles had an accurate\\nmemory, a fact unsupported by evidence. Also misleading was the prosecutor’s claim that\\nBarnes was “a proven liar.” The word “proven” could suggest either that Barnes’s testimony had\\nbeen undermined by other evidence at trial or (inaccurately) that Barnes’s untruthfulness had\\nbeen legally established. Because the prosecutor did not tie the “proven” remark to a discussion\\nof Barnes’s testimony, the remark encouraged the jury to take the latter view and trust the\\nprosecutor that “anything [Barnes] had to say” had been conclusively discredited.\\n\\n b. Whether the Remarks Were Isolated or Extensive\\n\\n The improper remarks were not isolated. In a three-day trial, with evidence presented\\nover two days and closing arguments and deliberations taking place on the third, the nine\\nimproper remarks were relatively extensive. Nor were they confined to one portion of the\\nproceeding. Rather, the prosecutor maligned Morales-Montanez’s prayers to the statue during\\ncross-examination on day two of the trial and during closing argument on day three, and he\\nassailed both defense witnesses’ credibility, and vouched for government witnesses, at various\\npoints during closing argument.\\n\\n c. Whether the Remarks Were Deliberate or Accidental\\n\\n Most of the remarks appear to have been deliberate. The prosecutor returned to the\\nsubjects of the prayers and credibility several times and in similar terms; evidently, he made a\\nchoice to emphasize those subjects. Here was no inadvertent slip of the tongue.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\n “The intentionality of the prosecutor’s improper remarks can be inferred from their\\nstrategic use.” Bates, 402 F.3d at 648. In Bates, we vacated a death sentence and remanded for\\nresentencing where the prosecutors’ misconduct appeared to have been deliberate because the\\nprosecutors “use[d] [inappropriate themes] repeatedly during summation” in the sentencing\\nphase of trial. Id. Among other actions, the prosecutors had repeatedly offered their personal\\nopinions that the defendant’s mitigation witnesses were not credible. We noted that “[t]he\\npersonal opinion of the prosecutors was primarily reserved for evaluating the testimony of the\\ndefense’s one disinterested witness, Dr. Griffin. [The defendant’s] case for mitigation rested on\\nDr. Griffin and [the defendant’s] mother, and the prosecutors repeatedly undermined Dr.\\nGriffin’s testimony by suggesting they did not believe it.” Id. Similarly, here, the defense theory\\nrested on the testimony of only two witnesses. The prosecutor attacked the credibility and\\ncharacter of both, but he aimed his most direct comments on credibility at Barnes, the more\\ndisinterested witness of the two.\\n\\n d. The Strength of the Evidence Against Morales-Montanez and Acosta\\n\\n Most importantly, the evidence supporting the convictions, although sufficient, was far\\nfrom overwhelming. As mentioned, all evidence tying Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\\nmethamphetamine was circumstantial. The government presented the following facts purporting\\nto link Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the methamphetamine: (1) the methamphetamine was\\nfound in an apartment leased by Acosta; (2) officers saw Morales-Montanez and Acosta at the\\napartment several times; (3) officers trailed Morales-Montanez and Acosta driving between the\\nhome and the apartment and believed they drove evasively on those trips. All of this evidence\\neither tied the methamphetamine to the apartment or tied Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\\napartment, but none of it necessarily tied Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\\nmethamphetamine. And Morales-Montanez and Acosta admitted having been to the apartment,\\nso the jury could have believed their innocent explanation. The jury’s view of Morales-\\nMontanez and Barnes’s credibility was therefore central to its guilt-or-innocence determination.\\n\\n This case differs markedly from those cases in which we have found prosecutorial\\nmisconduct outweighed by the strength of the government’s evidence. For example, in Modena,\\nwe found misconduct was not flagrant where the prosecutor had made only two improper\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\nremarks during closing argument; the government presented thirty witnesses and over 200\\nexhibits in support of the defendant’s conviction for tax-evasion charges; and the defendant\\npresented no evidence. 302 F.3d at 629, 635. In Cristini v. McKee, 526 F.3d 888, 902 (6th Cir.\\n2008), we found that a prosecutor’s alleged misconduct was not flagrant because the remarks had\\nnot been misleading and “the case against the Petitioner was strong”: “[t]hree disinterested\\nwitnesses corroborated” the testimony of the petitioner’s co-defendant (who had turned state’s\\nevidence), “and one of those [disinterested] witnesses identified the Petitioner.” Here, by\\ncontrast, no eyewitness or physical evidence tied Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\\nmethamphetamine, and the defense presented an innocent explanation not necessarily\\nincompatible with the government’s circumstantial evidence.\\n\\n Indeed, even one unfairly prejudicial remark may warrant reversal where the evidence of\\nguilt is not very strong and the defense offers a non-incriminating explanation. In United States\\nv. Love, 534 F.2d 87, 89 (6th Cir. 1976), we reversed the defendant’s conviction for\\ncommunicating threats of injury in interstate commerce because the prosecutor had asked—with\\nno evidentiary support for the question—whether the defendant’s employer “was part of another\\norganization ‘of ill character like [the] Mafia or anything like that.’” Because “the jury found\\nappellant not guilty of four counts of the indictment and guilty of only two counts, and since the\\nevidence [was] susceptible to an interpretation of innocent behavior, we [could not] regard the\\nprejudice as harmless.” Id. Although defense counsel had objected contemporaneously to the\\nMafia comment and the Love court did not engage in a flagrancy analysis, the same common\\nsense about the effect of prejudicial comments in a close case applies here. The evidence against\\nMorales-Montanez and Acosta was not overwhelming, and any one or several of the prosecutor’s\\nimproper comments may have tipped the balance toward conviction.\\n\\n 4. Remaining Arguments by the Government\\n\\n The government makes two arguments for why the prosecutor’s comments were not\\nreversible misconduct. Both fail.\\n\\n First, the government argues that the aspersions on Barnes’s credibility were “not plainly\\nerroneous,” United States Br. at 17, because the defense put Barnes’s credibility in issue by\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 25\\n\\n\\nhaving him testify and by telling the jury during opening statements that “you’re going to\\nconclude [Barnes is] telling the truth.” R. 126, PageID 743. However, that the defense has put a\\nwitness’s credibility in issue does not mean that the prosecutor may attack credibility any way he\\nsees fit. See Francis, 170 F.3d at 552 (“Because [the defendant] took the stand, it was not\\nimproper for the prosecutor to question his credibility. The impropriety stems from the manner\\nin which she did so [i.e., by stating that the defendant was lying without citing evidence to\\nsupport that statement].”). If the government were correct that any time a defense witness takes\\nthe stand, his credibility may be attacked in unscrupulous and broadly worded terms as long as\\ndefense counsel does not object, then our case law on flagrant prosecutorial misconduct would\\nbe cast into doubt. See, e.g., Bates, 402 F.3d at 647–48. What is more, the prosecutor’s repeated\\nattacks on Barnes’s credibility during closing argument were disproportionate to defense\\ncounsel’s lone prediction at the beginning of trial that the jury would “conclude [Barnes was]\\ntelling the truth.”\\n\\n Second, the government argues that “the district court mitigated any possible prejudicial\\nimpact by instructing the jury that arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence.”\\nUnited States Br. at 3. The district court did so instruct the jury. See R. 131, PageID 1444–45.\\nNevertheless, that general instruction was not sufficient to remedy the effect of the prosecutor’s\\nrepeated prejudicial remarks about Morales-Montanez and Barnes and favorable comments on\\nthe government’s witnesses. We found a similar instruction inadequate to “cure[] the prejudice\\ncaused by” a prosecutor’s misrepresentations of evidence and “attacks on defense counsel’s\\ntruthfulness” where, as here, the instruction “was made along with all other routine instructions\\nfor evaluating the evidence presented at trial,” and “the instruction was not given at the time of\\nthe improper comments” but “was given only after closing arguments had been completed.”\\nCarter, 236 F.3d at 787.\\n\\n In sum, Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s trial was fundamentally unfair because of the\\nprosecutor’s flagrant misconduct. Morales-Montanez and Acosta are therefore entitled to a new\\ntrial.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 26\\n\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s convictions\\nand sentences on the methamphetamine count and REMAND for a new trial.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 27\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4396971/\", \"author_raw\": \"JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge\"}, {\"author\": \"HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, concurring. I write simply to state that separate and\\napart from the improper vouching, bolstering, and attacks on Barnes’s credibility, which may not\\non their own warrant a new trial, I find the prosecutor’s questions and argument regarding\\nMorales-Montanez’s religious practices and beliefs necessitate reversal in and of themselves.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4396971/\", \"author_raw\": \"HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KETHLEDGE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"WHITE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BUSH"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KETHLEDGE\": \", Circuit\", \"WHITE\": \", Circuit\", \"BUSH\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619718/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessica R. ACOSTA (18-5207); Luis R. Morales-Montanez (18-5212), Defendants-Appellants.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-15\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0089p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n │\n v. > Nos. 18-5207/5212\n │\n │\n JESSICA R. ACOSTA (18-5207); LUIS R. MORALES- │\n MONTANEZ (18-5212), │\n Defendants-Appellants. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.\n No. 5:17-cr-00040-2—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: May 15, 2019\n\n Before: KETHLEDGE, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: Russell J. Baldani, BALDANI, ROWLAND & RICHARDSON, Lexington,\nKentucky, for Appellant in 18-5207. Paul Neel, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant in 18-5212.\nCharles P. Wisdom, Jr., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Lexington, Kentucky, for\nAppellee.\n\n BUSH, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which KETHLEDGE and WHITE, JJ.,\njoined. WHITE, J. (pg. 27), delivered a separate concurring opinion in which KETHLEDGE, J.,\njoined.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 2\n\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. A prosecutor “may strike hard blows” but “is not at\nliberty to strike foul ones.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). The prosecutor\ncrossed that line in this case.\n\n A jury convicted Luis Morales-Montanez and Jessica Acosta of possession with intent to\ndistribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, they argue that they were\nentitled to a judgment of acquittal because the government presented insufficient evidence to\nsupport their convictions. In the alternative, they argue for a new trial because they allege\nnumerous errors resulted in a fundamentally unfair proceeding, violating their due process rights.\nThere was sufficient evidence for their convictions. However, because remarks made by the\nprosecutor rose to the level of flagrant misconduct and deprived Morales-Montanez and Acosta\nof a fair trial, we VACATE their convictions and sentences and REMAND for a new trial.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n After a raid on their home, Morales-Montanez and Acosta were indicted for possession\nwith intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing a detectable amount of\nmethamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to\ndistribute marijuana, and possession of firearms in furtherance of the cocaine and marijuana\noffenses. Both defendants pled guilty to the cocaine, marijuana, and firearms charges, but they\ncontested the methamphetamine count, which went to trial.\n\nA. The Arrests and Searches\n\n The following relevant facts were presented at trial, which took place over three days in\nOctober 2017.\n\n In the fall of 2016, Morales-Montanez and Acosta were living with Acosta’s two children\nat 2428 Larkin Road (the “home”) in Lexington, Kentucky. Acosta had also recently leased an\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 3\n\n\napartment at 2504 Larkin Road (the “apartment”). The manager of the apartment building\ntestified that she had given Acosta only one key.\n\n Morales-Montanez and Acosta were suspected of drug trafficking, so Detective Matthew\nEvans of the Lexington Police Department began monitoring their movements in fall 2016. On\nseveral occasions, Evans and his team observed Morales-Montanez and Acosta at the apartment\nbuilding. Twice, Evans gained entrance to the building and observed them enter the apartment\nitself. He also observed Morales-Montanez and Acosta driving between the home and the\napartment building, and he believed they were driving evasively in a manner common to drug\ndealers who do not wish to be followed. Based on his surveillance, Evans obtained warrants for\nboth the home and the apartment.\n\n Officers from Evans’s team searched the apartment on December 8, 2016. The search\nrevealed, stashed in a closet, a plastic container filled with approximately two pounds of crystal\nmethamphetamine. Officers also discovered packing materials, money orders, and air\nfresheners, which Evans testified were indicative of drug trafficking, in the apartment. While\nsearching the apartment, officers also found various personal items, including, on a coffee table\nin the living room, a homework assignment bearing the name of Acosta’s child “J.A.”\n\n Also on December 8, Evans arrested Acosta in a traffic stop and went with her to the\nhome. There, Evans found Morales-Montanez, as well as numerous guns and copious amounts\nof marijuana and cocaine. The detective also discovered digital scales, packing materials,\n$42,507 in cash, money orders, a ledger, and a shrine to a statue of Jesus Malverde, who\nMorales-Montanez later testified at trial is worshiped as a “saint” by marijuana dealers. In\naddition, Evans found a set of keys to the apartment in the home.\n\n Evans read Morales-Montanez and Acosta their rights and questioned them. Confronted\nwith news of what officers had found in the apartment, Morales-Montanez initially responded\nthat he knew nothing about the apartment. Shortly thereafter, Morales-Montanez admitted he\nhad been to the apartment with Acosta, but he continued to deny knowledge of the\nmethamphetamine. But Morales-Montanez very quickly admitted to dealing in marijuana and\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 4\n\n\ncocaine: in fact, he called himself a “weed man” who had recently expanded into cocaine to beef\nup his income for the Christmas season.\n\n Morales-Montanez and Acosta were detained pending trial. While detained, Morales-\nMontanez was temporarily housed with a man named Brian Barnes. Barnes was a former\nmethamphetamine trafficker serving a seventeen-year prison term.\n\n We will now pick up the story with Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s version.\n\nB. The Defense Theory of the Case\n\n Acosta chose not to testify, but Morales-Montanez and Barnes testified for the defense.\nThe defense presented the following version of events.\n\n Acosta knew that Morales-Montanez was running a marijuana operation out of the home,\nand she was not happy about it. When their relationship was at a crisis point and Morales-\nMontanez was visiting California, Acosta decided to rent the apartment. However, after Acosta\nsigned the lease, she and Morales-Montanez patched up their relationship, and Acosta decided to\nkeep living at the home and to sublet the apartment.\n\n One day in late October 2016, Acosta was hanging flyers advertising the apartment at a\ngrocery store when Brian Barnes (Morales-Montanez’s future cellmate) noticed her and\nintroduced himself. When Barnes learned that Acosta was seeking to sublet her apartment, he\ntold her he wanted to rent. Acosta took Barnes to the apartment that day and showed him\naround. They agreed on a monthly rent of $625, and Barnes gave Acosta a $1,500 up-front\npayment.\n\n As it turned out, Barnes was a large-scale methamphetamine dealer. He maintained\nmultiple addresses to store drugs and drug paraphernalia, and he needed to move out of his\nprimary residence because his roommates had deserted him after they learned he was having\ndrugs shipped to him there. Barnes maintained that that was why he was looking for an\napartment when he met Acosta. Barnes and Morales-Montanez both also testified at trial that\nneither Morales-Montanez nor Acosta was aware of Barnes’s profession or of his reason for\nrenting the apartment.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 5\n\n\n Soon Barnes fell behind on his rent. On several occasions, Morales-Montanez and\nAcosta went to the apartment to try to find him, but he was never there. On one visit, Morales-\nMontanez and Acosta did come across a stash of guns that Barnes had apparently left in the\napartment. In place of the missed rent payment, Morales-Montanez took the guns back with him\nto the home.\n\n Morales-Montanez testified that he did not recall ever having driven in an evasive\nmanner between the home and the apartment. He also testified that the reason he had initially\ndenied knowing anything about the apartment when questioned by Evans was that he had been\nafraid of getting in trouble for taking Barnes’s guns.\n\n Despite his stated reason for renting the apartment, Barnes testified that he went there\nonly twice: once with Acosta when they were discussing terms and once very early in the\nmorning on November 5, 2016. According to Barnes, he received a warning phone call on\nNovember 4 from a fellow drug dealer, Robert Griffett, who had been detained by the police and\nhad tipped them to Barnes’s activities before being released. Fearing that the police would seize\nhis methamphetamine stash from his residence, Barnes immediately packed it into a plastic\ncontainer and took it, along with his drug packaging materials and his guns, to the apartment.\n\n Barnes did not evade the police for long. He was arrested on November 7, 2016, pled\nguilty to drug offenses, and was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment, to be served at eighty-\nfive percent for a prison term of seventeen years.\n\n Then Morales-Montanez and Acosta were also arrested and charged. Morales-Montanez\nhappened to be housed with Barnes in jail for several months beginning in early 2017. He had\nnever met Barnes before that point or known that Barnes was the sublessee of the apartment.\nAlthough Barnes and Morales-Montanez testified that they never talked about their cases, Barnes\nstated that through his connections on the outside, he became aware that Morales-Montanez and\nAcosta had been charged with possession of the very methamphetamine he had secreted in the\napartment. In January 2017, Barnes asked his attorney to set up a meeting with the prosecutor so\nthat Barnes could put Morales-Montanez and Acosta in the clear. After the meeting—which\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 6\n\n\ntook place in July 2017—Barnes did not feel that his efforts had been successful, so he wrote to\ndefense counsel1 and signed on as a defense witness.\n\n At trial, Barnes identified defense Exhibit 1 as the container of methamphetamine he said\nhe had left in the apartment. He testified that he had earlier told a law-enforcement officer he\nhad wrapped the methamphetamine in “clothes” before leaving it in the apartment, although he\ndid not remember “[w]hat kind of clothes.” R. 130, PageID 1230. As presented at trial,\nhowever, the container of methamphetamine was not wrapped in clothes, and the detective who\nfound the container testified that it had not been “wrapped in anything” at the time. Id. at\nPageID 1141, 1144.\n\nC. Defense Counsel’s First Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal\n\n At the close of the evidence, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing\nthat no reasonable jury could convict Morales-Montanez and Acosta of possession of\nmethamphetamine on the evidence presented. The court denied the motion.\n\nD. The Homework Issue and the Post-Trial Motion\n\n During its deliberations, the jury sent out a note asking to see United States Exhibit 6,\nwhich was a copy of the homework assignment that officers had found in the apartment. The\ncourt responded by informing the jury that the homework had not been introduced in evidence,\nso the jury would have to rely on its memory of the homework during deliberations. Later, the\ncourt realized that the evidence had, in fact, been admitted; the court scheduled a hearing with\nthe attorneys to determine what to do.\n\n Shortly thereafter, Acosta filed, and Morales-Montanez joined, a motion for a new trial\nand in the alternative for a judgment of acquittal. The memorandum in support of the motion\nargued that (1) the district court had erred in keeping the homework exhibit from the jury and\n(2) the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to convict Morales-Montanez and Acosta.\n\n\n\n 1Morales-Montanez and Acosta each had an attorney. We will refer to either or both simply as “defense\ncounsel.”\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 7\n\n\n The district court held a hearing and denied the motion, reasoning that the homework\nexhibit was not exculpatory, so any error was harmless, and that the evidence was sufficient to\nsupport the convictions.\n\n II. DISCUSSION\n\n On appeal, Morales-Montanez and Acosta again argue that the evidence was insufficient\nto support their convictions, and they also argue that numerous alleged errors at trial rendered the\nproceeding fundamentally unfair. They ask this court to remand with instructions to dismiss the\nmethamphetamine count with prejudice or to reverse the district court’s denial of the new trial\nmotion. Although Morales-Montanez and Acosta do not explain (and cite no cases explaining)\nwhy any of their theories of error would entitle them to a dismissal with prejudice of the charges\nagainst them, the substantive arguments in their briefing make clear that they believe the district\ncourt erred in denying their motion for a judgment of acquittal. Therefore, we will begin by\naddressing whether Morales-Montanez and Acosta are entitled to a judgment of acquittal on\nsufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds.\n\nA. Sufficiency of the Evidence\n\n We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal based\non the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Humphrey, 279 F.3d 372, 378 (6th Cir.\n2002). In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and ask\nwhether any rational trier of fact could have found Morales-Montanez and Acosta guilty beyond\na reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). In answering that question,\nwe must not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations. United States v. Chavis,\n296 F.3d 450, 455 (6th Cir. 2002). Instead, we must draw all reasonable inferences, including\ninferences from circumstantial evidence, in favor of the government. United States v. Rozin,\n664 F.3d 1052, 1058 (6th Cir. 2012). “Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a\nconviction and such evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.”\nUnited States v. Wettstain, 618 F.3d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 8\n\n\n Morales-Montanez and Acosta argue that no rational trier of fact could have found they\nconstructively possessed the methamphetamine found in the apartment.2 The district court gave\nthe following instruction on constructive possession:\n\n The government does not necessarily have to prove that the defendants physically\n possessed the mixture or substance containing methamphetamine for you to find\n them guilty of this crime. The law recognizes two kinds of possession, actual\n possession or constructive possession. Either one of these, if proved by the\n government, is enough to convict.\n\n ....\n To establish constructive possession, the government must prove that the\n defendants had the right to exercise physical control over the mixture and knew\n they had the right and that they intended to exercise physical control over the\n mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine at\n some time, either directly or through other persons.\n ....\n\n But understand just being present where something is located does not\n equal possession. The government must prove that the defendant had actual or\n constructive possession of the mixture or substance containing methamphetamine,\n and that they knew they did for you to find them guilty of this crime. This, of\n course, is all for you to decide.\n\nR. 131, PageID 1454–55. The district court’s instruction accurately articulated the elements of\nconstructive possession. See United States v. Jenkins, 593 F.3d 480, 484 (6th Cir. 2010).\n\n Although the evidence against Morales-Montanez and Acosta was far from\noverwhelming, it was sufficient for a rational jury to convict them of constructive possession\nwith intent to distribute. The government presented the following evidence. (1) Detective Evans\nobserved Morales-Montanez and Acosta at the apartment but (2) detectives had never seen\nBarnes—or anyone else—there. (3) Also, on multiple occasions, Evans or members of his team\nfollowed Morales-Montanez and Acosta driving between the apartment and the home, and Evans\nbelieved, based on his experience investigating drug dealers, that they were driving in an evasive\nmanner to avoid being followed. (4) When Acosta leased the apartment, she was given only one\n\n\n 2Morales-Montanez and Acosta do not dispute that a rational jury could find the “intent” element of\npossession with intent to distribute if it could find the “possession” element satisfied.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 9\n\n\nkey—according to the apartment manager—and yet a ring of multiple keys to the apartment was\ndiscovered in Evans’s search of the home. That key ring made less plausible Morales-\nMontanez’s claim that he and Acosta always visited the apartment together.\n\n In support of acquittal, by contrast, the defense presented the testimony of Barnes and\nMorales-Montanez, who both swore that Barnes was responsible for the methamphetamine in the\napartment. But the jury heard testimony that Barnes was housed with Morales-Montanez in jail,\nand the jury could have believed that the cellmates came to some agreement by which Barnes\nwould take responsibility for the methamphetamine. If the jury found these two not to be\ncredible—a determination that we are not permitted to second-guess, see Chavis, 296 F.3d at\n455—then the government’s case would look convincing.\n\n In addition, several inconsistencies or questionable assertions appeared in Barnes’s or\nMorales-Montanez’s testimony, and the jury could have attributed them either to innocent\nmistakes or to lies, as it chose. For example, the government highlighted evidence that Barnes\nhad received a shipment of methamphetamine at his residence after the date when he claimed to\nhave moved his drugs, guns, and paraphernalia to the apartment. The appearance of the\nmethamphetamine at trial—not wrapped in clothes as Barnes had described—also discredited\nBarnes’s story. Furthermore, the jury could have chosen not to believe that Morales-Montanez\ninitially denied knowledge of the apartment because he feared trouble over taking Barnes’s guns.\nThe jury could have believed that he had something more serious to hide.\n\n In sum, a significant amount of evidence tied Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\napartment, and the jury was free to reject in total Barnes’s and Morales-Montanez’s insistence\nthat Morales-Montanez and Acosta had nothing to do with the methamphetamine found in the\napartment. Although this was not a straightforward case with direct proof of possession, we\nmust view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. In that light, we conclude\nthat a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Morales-Montanez\nand Acosta “had the right to exercise physical control over the [methamphetamine]” and\n“intended to exercise physical control over the [methamphetamine],” as the district court\ninstructed the jury. The district court did not err in denying the motion for a judgment of\nacquittal or for a new trial on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 10\n\n\nB. Fairness of the Trial\n\n Notwithstanding that there was enough evidence to support the convictions, we\nnonetheless vacate them and remand for a new trial because of numerous errors relating to the\nprosecutor’s misconduct at trial that, considered cumulatively, deprived Morales-Montanez and\nAcosta of a fair proceeding.\n\n Morales-Montanez and Acosta allege that three categories of error occurred during trial\nand rendered it fundamentally unfair. First, they argue that the district court improperly allowed\nthe prosecutor to question witnesses about the penalty for the methamphetamine count. Second,\nthey argue that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Morales-Montanez and the prosecutor’s\nclosing argument contained numerous prejudicial questions and remarks. And third, they argue\nthey suffered prejudice when the district court prevented the jury from seeing the homework\nexhibit during deliberations.\n\n Between his cross-examination of Morales-Montanez and his closing argument, the\nprosecutor made nine improper and prejudicial remarks and questions that resulted in a\nfundamentally unfair trial. Because we find that this prosecutorial misconduct entitles Morales-\nMontanez and Acosta to a new trial, we need not address the prosecutor’s questions regarding\nthe penalty or the homework issue. See United States v. Francis, 170 F.3d 546, 548 (6th Cir.\n1999) (remanding for a new trial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct and not addressing the\nappellants’ remaining arguments).\n\n 1. Standard of Review\n\n Not one of the prosecutor’s statements drew an objection from trial counsel. Therefore,\nwe may remand for a new trial only if plain error occurred. United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d\n1380, 1383 (6th Cir. 1994). Plain error has three elements: “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and\n(3) that affect[s] substantial rights.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997)\n(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Olano,\n507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). “An error affects substantial rights if it affect[s] the outcome of the\ncase.” United States v. Walker, No. 18-1256, 2019 WL 326483, at *3 (6th Cir. Jan. 24, 2019)\n(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Teh, 535 F.3d 511, 516 (6th Cir.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 11\n\n\n2008)). “If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to\nnotice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or\npublic reputation of judicial proceedings.” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 (alteration in original)\n(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 732).\n\n To determine whether the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct was “so exceptionally flagrant\nthat it constitutes plain error, and is grounds for reversal even [though] the defendant did not\nobject to it,” United States v. Carter, 236 F.3d 777, 783 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Carroll, 26 F.3d\nat 1385 n.6), we assess four factors:\n\n [1] the degree to which the remarks complained of have a tendency to mislead the\n jury and to prejudice the accused; [2] whether they were isolated or extensive; [3]\n whether they were deliberately or accidentally placed before the jury[;] and [4]\n the strength of the competent proofs introduced to establish the guilt of the\n accused.\n\nCarroll, 26 F.3d at 1384 (quoting United States v. Leon, 534 F.2d 667, 679 (6th Cir. 1976)).\nMorales-Montanez and Acosta argue that the prosecutor committed flagrant misconduct in this\ncase.3\n\n 2. The Prosecutor’s Misconduct\n\n a. Vouching or Bolstering\n\n First, Morales-Montanez and Acosta argue that the prosecutor improperly vouched for or\nbolstered the testimony of government witnesses. “Improper vouching occurs when a prosecutor\nsupports the credibility of a witness by indicating a personal belief in the witness’s\ncredibility . . . .” Francis, 170 F.3d at 550 (citations omitted). Similarly, “[b]olstering occurs\nwhen the prosecutor implies that the witness’s testimony is corroborated by evidence known to\nthe government but not known to the jury.” Id. at 551 (citation omitted).\n\n\n 3Morales-Montanez and Acosta also argue that we may reverse even if the misconduct was not flagrant,\nbecause this court has reversed convictions for non-flagrant misconduct where defense counsel objected to some of\nthe comments even if not to all; “the proof of the defendant’s guilt [was] not overwhelming;” and “the trial court\nfailed to cure the impropriety by failing to admonish the jury.” Francis, 170 F.3d at 550 (citations omitted).\nHowever, here, defense counsel did not object to any of the improper comments. Therefore, we apply the flagrancy\nanalysis.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 12\n\n\n During closing argument, the prosecutor made the following comments. First, in\nrecapping the testimony of the detective who had found the methamphetamine in the apartment,\nthe prosecutor stated: “Detective Bowles who was here, he’s testified very well, he understood\nand remembered everything he did. Mr. Barnes told you that [the methamphetamine] was\nwrapped in clothes. No, it wasn’t. As Detective Bowles testified, it was there, he picked it up\nand he brought it back down.” R. 131, PageID 1391 (emphasis added). Second, the prosecutor\nlater revisited the subject of Bowles’s finding the methamphetamine:\n\n Now, make sure we put the evidence in the proper perspective. When Mr.\n Barnes testified, I asked him, did you say that the meth was wrapped in clothes?\n Yes. He said, I said that, that’s what I did. Nobody made that up. It was [another\n law-enforcement officer, who had interviewed Barnes after his arrest] that came\n in that said, he told me it was wrapped in clothes. Detective Bowles, a fine young\n man, picked it up and there it was.\n\nId. at PageID 1435 (emphasis added). Third, Morales-Montanez and Acosta take issue with the\nprosecutor’s characterization of Evans’s work on the case: “Based upon the fine work of\nDetective Evans, based upon the search warrants that were executed, the interviews that were\ndone, the two pounds of methamphetamine worth $20,000 is off the street.” Id. at PageID 1402\n(emphasis added).\n\n Although these comments were not direct comments on the detectives’ truthfulness,\nsaying a witness is a “fine young man” implies that the speaker has a favorable view of the\nwitness’s truthfulness. Analogously, in United States v. Modena, 302 F.3d 626, 634–35 (6th Cir.\n2002), we found that a prosecutor’s description of a government witness as a “law-abiding man”\nwas improper vouching because “a law-abiding man does not, of course, commit perjury.” We\ndo not mean to suggest that every favorable comment on a government witness constitutes\nprosecutorial misconduct, but in each case, the effect of such comments must be considered in\nthe context of the prosecutor’s other statements, the defense arguments, and the evidence\npresented at trial. See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 16 (1985) (“[E]ach case necessarily\nturns on its own facts.” (citation omitted)). Here, the positive description of Bowles strikingly\ndiffered from the prosecutor’s negative portrayals of the defense witnesses, as detailed later.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 13\n\n\n Moreover, we agree with Morales-Montanez and Acosta that the prosecutor’s\ncharacterization of Bowles’s testimony constituted improper vouching and bolstering. By\nopining that Bowles had testified “very well,” the prosecutor suggested that he believed\nBowles’s testimony. And by stating that Bowles “remembered everything he did,” the\nprosecutor made a factual assertion about Bowles’s memory and reliability that had no basis in\nthe evidence presented at trial and therefore invited the jury to believe Bowles simply on the\nprosecutor’s say-so. See Hodge v. Hurley, 426 F.3d 368, 378–79 (6th Cir. 2005) (noting that\ncomments on credibility “not coupled with a more detailed analysis of the evidence . . . convey\nan impression to the jury that they should simply trust the State’s judgment” that a witness is or\nis not credible); cf. Washington v. Hofbauer, 228 F.3d 689, 700 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding\nmisconduct where the prosecutor suggested a government witness’s story had “been consistent\nover time,” but “there was no evidence supporting that factual assertion”). In a case where\ncredibility judgments were almost certainly determinative—because all of the government’s\nevidence of guilt was circumstantial—such a comment may have been highly prejudicial. See\nHodge, 426 F.3d at 376.\n\n The reference to Evans as having done “fine work” also suggested that the prosecutor\nviewed Evans as an ethical detective and honest witness. In Walker v. Morrow, 458 F. App’x\n475, 489–90 (6th Cir. 2012), we held that a prosecutor engaged in improper vouching when\n(among other comments) she told the jury that a law-enforcement officer had “done an excellent\njob in this case . . . and we are just asking you to find the truth.” The statement in Walker more\nclosely tied the officer’s work to the result the prosecutor wanted the jury to reach than the\nprosecutor’s statement about Evans in this case, but the comments are otherwise similarly\nphrased, and we find Walker’s reasoning persuasive. Although not overtly a comment on\ncredibility and perhaps not harmful on its own, the comment on Evans contributed to the overall\npicture the prosecutor was painting of trustworthy government witnesses, a sharp contrast to the\npicture he painted of the defense witnesses.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 14\n\n\n b. Attacks on Defense Witnesses’ Credibility\n\n During his closing argument, the prosecutor repeatedly made known his opinion that the\ntwo key defense witnesses were not credible. First, the prosecutor offered the following thoughts\non Barnes:\n\n In between the time [Barnes] said he was called by [Robert Griffett, who Barnes\n claimed warned him against law-enforcement officers] and the time he got\n arrested, he got yet another package of methamphetamine to the same address\n where he received the three previous packages. If he was such a smart drug\n dealer and trying to avoid the police, why would he still have methamphetamine\n coming to his place? Because he’s lying. He is lying about taking that stuff over\n [to the apartment].\n\nR. 131 at PageID 1396 (emphasis added). Near the end of his closing argument, the prosecutor\nattacked Barnes again: “Is he a huge drug dealer? Yes, he is. Huge. Is he a weapons trafficker?\nYes. Is he a money launderer?4 Yes. Should he be entitled to any credibility whatsoever? Not\nat all. Zero.” Id. at PageID 1400 (emphasis added). And shortly thereafter, the prosecutor was\naddressing Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s argument that they did not put the\nmethamphetamine in the apartment when he stated:\n\n The only people ever seen going into Apartment 172 as seen by Detective Evans,\n one and two [i.e., Morales-Montanez and Acosta]. And that’s it. There is not a\n shred of evidence that allows the sight of anybody else to go in there. Brian\n Barnes is a proven liar, don’t believe anything he had to say.\n\nId. at PageID 1401 (emphasis added).\n\n The prosecutor also commented unfavorably on Morales-Montanez’s credibility: “Luis\nMorales [sic], the worshiper of a deity of a drug trafficking entity who prays for protection from\npolice, prosecutors, court systems and juries. Is he entitled to any credibility for what he said?\nNo, not at all.” Id. at PageID 1400 (emphasis added).\n\n\n 4We are in the dark regarding to what the “money launderer” comment referred. Barnes’s testimony\ncontained no discussion of money laundering or similar activity. Although its prejudicial effect was probably\nminimal (because the jury already knew Barnes had admitted committing serious drug crimes), the prosecutor’s\nreference to money laundering appears to have been an allusion to real or imagined facts not in evidence. The\n“weapons trafficker” comment probably referred to Barnes’s practice of sending shipments of guns to California as\n“blessings,” a show of appreciation to his methamphetamine suppliers. R. 130, PageID 1221–22.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 15\n\n\n “It is patently improper for a prosecutor either to comment on the credibility of a witness\nor to express a personal belief that a particular witness is lying.” Hodge, 426 F.3d at 378\n(citations omitted).\n\n [T]wo separate harms . . . arise from such misconduct. First, such comments can\n convey the impression that evidence not presented to the jury, but known to the\n prosecutor, supports the charges . . . . Second, the prosecutor’s opinion carries\n with it the imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the\n Government’s judgment rather than its own view of the evidence.\n\nId. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Young, 470 U.S. at 18–19). The second concern\nis particularly prominent when “statements by the prosecutor [are] not coupled with a more\ndetailed analysis of the evidence actually adduced at trial.” Id.\n\n Here, the prosecutor’s comments on credibility were especially damaging because the\ndefense strategy was premised upon getting the jury to believe Morales-Montanez and Barnes.\nAll of the evidence tying Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the methamphetamine was\ncircumstantial. To acquit, the jury had only to find Morales-Montanez and Barnes’s stories\ncredible. The jury did not have to disbelieve the government’s witnesses: it could have\nreconciled both sides’ testimony by ascribing an innocent interpretation to each time the\ndetectives testified they had seen Morales-Montanez and Acosta at the apartment. As the district\ncourt noted in its oral ruling on Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s motion for a judgment of\nacquittal at the close of the evidence, “it really is a case of credibility for the jury to decide.”\nR. 130, PageID 1367.\n\n We have reversed in the past based on comments similar to the prosecutor’s here. In\nHodge, we reversed a denial of a writ of habeas corpus to a defendant convicted of child rape\n“where the only evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction was a jury determination that the\ncomplaining witness was more credible than the defendant,” and the prosecutor had made\nnumerous improper comments, including assertions that defense witnesses were lying,\nsuggestions that the jury could consider character evidence as evidence of guilt, and\nmisrepresentations of the evidence. 426 F.3d at 371. Among the improper comments was the\nHodge prosecutor’s statement in his rebuttal argument that “[the defendant] is not what he\nportrays himself to be, and that is because he is lying to extricate himself from what he’s done.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 16\n\n\n[The complaining witness] is absolutely believable, her family is absolutely believable.” Id. at\n379 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).\n\n In finding that the defense counsel’s failure to object to any of the comments constituted\nineffective assistance of counsel, we found “a reasonable probability that the result of the\nproceeding would have been different” had the defense counsel made timely objections. Id. at\n376. Here, the same logic dictates that there is a reasonable probability the prosecutor’s\ncomments affected the result at Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s trial: as in Hodge, the jury’s\ndecision as to guilt or innocence turned on credibility assessments.\n\n The government defends the comments on the basis that inconsistencies in Barnes’s story\nor his conduct created “good reasons to doubt his truthfulness.”5 United States Br. at 17. But\nsuch doubts do not confer a blanket license to impugn a witness’s credibility. Instead, the\nprosecutor should highlight inconsistencies with a “detailed analysis of the evidence.” Hodge,\n426 F.3d at 378; see also Francis, 170 F.3d at 552.\n\n It is true that the prosecutor’s comment that Barnes “was lying about taking” the\nmethamphetamine to the apartment followed a brief rehash of evidence. Specifically, the\nprosecutor referred to testimony that Barnes had received drugs at his home address even after\nhaving been alerted to the danger of doing so. That would seem inconsistent with Barnes’s story\nthat he wanted to move all his drugs and paraphernalia to the apartment as soon as he knew the\npolice might be after him. Nevertheless, that apparent inconsistency did not inexorably lead to\nthe conclusion that Barnes was lying. The jury could have reasonably viewed the mailed-\nmethamphetamine fiasco as the result of Barnes’s shortsightedness in directing drug deliveries\nbefore his arrest, just as it could have viewed any apparent inconsistencies in his testimony as a\nresult of mistake or forgetfulness. It was improper for the prosecutor to announce that he had\nmade up his own mind about the reason for Barnes’s testimony.\n\n\n\n 5Specifically,the government stresses that Barnes (1) was inconsistent in his recollection of who had called\nhim and warned him about the police—at trial, he testified that Robert Griffett called him, but in a November 2016\npost-arrest interview with a law-enforcement officer, Barnes had stated that a man named “J.T.” called him;\n(2) Barnes did not take responsibility for the methamphetamine or mention Morales-Montanez, Acosta, or the\napartment at the time of his arrest or in either of two November 2016 post-arrest interviews.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 17\n\n\n The prosecutor’s next statement, that Barnes “[s]hould [not] be entitled to any credibility\nwhatsoever,” did not accompany a detailed recitation of evidence; it was simply advice to the\njury about whom to believe. Indeed, the statement suggested that the jury should disbelieve\nBarnes because he had been involved in criminal activity. Although Federal Rule of Evidence\n609(a)(1) allows an attorney to impeach a witness’s character for truthfulness by introducing\nevidence that the witness has a conviction for a crime punishable “by imprisonment for more\nthan one year”—such as Barnes’s methamphetamine conviction—the prosecutor did not\nintroduce the conviction as impeachment evidence, and he did not reference the conviction in\nstating that Barnes was not credible. Thus, the statement simply assumed that Barnes was not\ncredible because of his criminal past without explaining why that past was relevant to\ntruthfulness.\n\n The third statement about Barnes, that he was “a proven liar,” was also uttered with no\nevidentiary context. The prosecutor simply tacked it onto his statement that no one other than\nMorales-Montanez and Acosta had been seen at the apartment during the relevant time period.\nIndeed, the prosecutor’s assertion that “[t]here is not a shred of evidence that allows the sight of\nanybody else to go in” the apartment came close to mischaracterization. Barnes’s testimony, of\ncourse, was evidence that someone else had gone into the apartment, even if it was not\neyewitness evidence from a detective that someone besides Morales-Montanez or Acosta had\nbeen “sight[ed]” there. The prosecutor was asking the jury to disregard crucial evidence that\nsomeone besides the two defendants had been at the apartment because, in the prosecutor’s view,\nthat evidence came from a liar.\n\n We also note that the “proven liar” assertion came within a transcript page of the\nprosecutor’s “fine work” vouching for Evans. The close proximity of a favorable comment on a\ngovernment witness to an unfavorable comment on a defense witness heightens the prejudicial\nnature of both. See Hodge, 426 F.3d at 379–80.\n\n Finally, the comment that Morales-Montanez was not “entitled to any credibility” was\nuntethered to any relevant evidence suggesting untruthfulness. We will address the prosecutor’s\ncomments about Morales-Montanez thoroughly in the next section, but here we note that, again,\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 18\n\n\nthe prosecutor transgressed the bounds of permissible argument by telling the jury it should not\nbelieve a defense witness.\n\n In sum, the prosecutor committed misconduct by repeatedly expressing his personal\nopinion that the defense witnesses were not credible. See id. at 378.\n\n c. Comments on Morales-Montanez’s Prayers and the Ten Commandments\n\n The prosecutor’s references to Morales-Montanez’s worship of the Jesus Malverde statue\nconstitute their own category of misconduct. First, in questioning Morales-Montanez about the\nshrine found in the home, the prosecutor conducted the following exchange:\n\n Q. You said that—that idol that you worship there is an idol that drug traffickers\n worship, correct?\n A. Yes, sir.\n\n ....\n Q. And you would say prayers for protection, right?\n A. Yes, sir.\n Q. Pr[a]yers from the police so they don’t get to follow you around, right?\n A. Yes, sir.\n Q. Did you say a little prayer before you walked into the courtroom today to your\n patron saint?\n A. Did I pray to my saint?\n Q. Yeah. Did you pray to that idol?\n A. I prayed to the man upstairs.\n Q. Uh-huh. But you didn’t, like, pray to the drug trafficker’s god that maybe the\n jury would believe me, right?\n A. No, sir.\n ....\n Q. You consider yourself Catholic?\n\n ....\n A. I don’t consider myself Catholic, I’m just a Catholic believer.\n Q. Catholic believer? Do you understand that there is a Commandment that says\n thou shall not have any god before me?\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 19\n\n\n A. Yes, I understand.\n Q. But yet you prayed to the idol for drug traffickers for protection?\n A. I did.\n\nR. 130, PageID 1288–89.\n\n In closing, the prosecutor again emphasized Morales-Montanez’s prayers:\n\n Another shocking thing yesterday was the defendant, Mr. Morales’ [sic]\n testimony. Thou shall not have any Gods before me. I’ve never ever seen a\n defendant admit to worshiping Malverde. I’m not going to call it a saint, I’m\n going to use the word and call it a deity. He worships a deity . . . . He prayed for\n protection from police. He prays that he doesn’t get caught.\n For whatever religious or philosophical reasons, he’s still trying to push\n away from Apartment 172. I wonder how many prayers he has said to Malverde\n before he walked into the courtroom yesterday. I wonder if what’s going through\n his mind this morning was, I’m going to say another prayer for protection from\n the jurors of Central Kentucky.\n ....\n\n Luis Morales [sic], the worshiper of a deity of a drug trafficking entity\n who prays for protection from police, prosecutors, court systems and juries. Is he\n entitled to any credibility for what he said? No, not at all.\n\nR. 131, PageID 1398–99, 1400.\n\n We agree with Morales-Montanez and Acosta that Morales-Montanez’s actual and\nsupposed prayers to Malverde were “utterly irrelevant” to the question of guilt. Morales-\nMontanez Br. at 40. What is more, the prosecutor’s statement in closing argument that he\n“wonder[ed] how many prayers [Morales-Montanez] ha[d] said to Malverde before he walked\ninto the courtroom yesterday” conflicted with the evidence, because Morales-Montanez had\ndenied during cross-examination that he prayed for the jury to believe him.\n\n In the same vein, we can “find no nonprejudicial explanation” for the prosecutor’s\nreferences to the Ten Commandments. United States v. Grey, 422 F.2d 1043, 1045 (6th Cir.\n1970). Morales-Montanez’s adherence or nonadherence to a Commandment had nothing to do\nwith whether he possessed methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. Furthermore, the\npart of the closing argument in which the prosecutor invoked the Ten Commandments and stated\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 20\n\n\nthat he had “never ever seen a defendant admit to worshiping Malverde” appears to have been an\nattempt to arouse the “passions and prejudices” of the jury against Morales-Montanez by\nsuggesting that he was a particularly reprobate criminal defendant. Bates v. Bell, 402 F.3d 635,\n642 (6th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).\n\n The government nonetheless suggests that the prayers to Malverde were relevant because,\n“[b]ased on Morales’s [sic] admitted worship of Malverde, the prosecutor could reasonably infer\nthat Morales [sic] was not restricting his prayers for protection to only his marijuana trade” and\nthat therefore his denials of any connection with the methamphetamine were not credible.\nUnited States Br. at 16. This argument has two flaws.\n\n First, if that is the inference the prosecutor was making, the prosecutor was also\nassuming—and asking the jury to assume—that Morales-Montanez in fact was involved in the\nmethamphetamine trade. Otherwise, he would have no reason to pray for protection in that trade.\nThat assumption puts the cart before the horse. The only evidence presented at trial that\nMorales-Montanez was dealing methamphetamine was the two pounds found in the apartment,\nand it was precisely Morales-Montanez’s connection to those two pounds that the prosecutor\nsought to prove. More likely, the prosecutor was asking the jury to infer that Morales-Montanez\nwas a methamphetamine dealer because he worshiped the Malverde statue—an unreasonable\ninference, because the government admits that Morales-Montanez described Malverde as the\nsaint of marijuana traffickers (as Morales-Montanez testified, the word “Malverde” in Spanish\nmeans “bad green”).6 R. 130, PageID 1276. More likely still, the prosecutor was merely\nattempting to put Morales-Montanez in a bad light as someone steeped in drug culture,\ncontinually violating the first Commandment.\n\n That leads to the second point: if the prosecutor was attempting to impeach Morales-\nMontanez’s credibility, he was doing so based on inadmissible considerations. American\n\n\n 6One of the government’s witnesses testified at trial that Malverde was “the patron saint of drug dealers”\nand was “commonly seen” in connection with “some of the larger scale drug traffickers.” R. 126, PageID 782. That\ntestimony could suggest that the “saint” was associated with drugs other than marijuana. However, no testimony\nwas presented tying Malverde to methamphetamine specifically, and even the government notes that the statue was\n“an indicator of marijuana activity.” United States Br. at 16. Of course, Morales-Montanez had already pled guilty\nto marijuana activity, and it was not in issue at trial.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 21\n\n\n“[c]ourts universally condemn the injection of religion into legal proceedings.” United States v.\nRoach, 502 F.3d 425, 436 (6th Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks\nomitted) (quoting Hicks v. Collins, 384 F.3d 204, 223 (6th Cir. 2004)). Here, the prosecutor did\nmore than “briefly highlight[] [Morales-Montanez’s] testimony” with respect to Malverde, as the\ngovernment argues; he also elicited testimony on Morales-Montanez’s Catholic beliefs and then\nimplied that Morales-Montanez was violating a biblical Commandment. United States Br. at 16.\nUnder Federal Rule of Evidence 610, “[e]vidence of a witness’s religious beliefs or opinions is\nnot admissible to attack or support the witness’s credibility.” By the same token, credibility\narguments based on religious affiliations or practices are not favored. Cf. United States v.\nRogers, 556 F.3d 1130, 1141 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Rule 610 and assuming without deciding\nthat a closing-argument reference to a government witness’s having worn a cross was improper).\n\n We hold that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct through his questions and remarks\nabout the Malverde statue.\n\n 3. Flagrancy\n\n Having concluded that nine remarks by the prosecutor were improper,7 we ask whether\nthey were flagrant and therefore warrant reversal despite defense counsel’s failure to preserve\nobjections. See Carter, 236 F.3d at 783. They were and they do.\n\n As stated, when determining whether prosecutorial misconduct is flagrant and amounts to\nplain error, we consider four factors. See Carroll, 26 F.3d at 1384. Here, all four of the factors\nsupport a finding of flagrancy.\n\n a. The Tendency of the Remarks to Mislead the Jury and to Prejudice the\n Accused\n\n All of the challenged remarks had “a tendency to mislead the jury” or “to prejudice the\naccused.” Id. (quoting Leon, 534 F.2d at 679). First, the remarks were prejudicial to Morales-\n\n 7Three vouching or bolstering remarks; three attacks on Barnes’s credibility; and three attacks on Morales-\nMontanez’s worship of the statue—one line of questioning during cross-examination and two sections of the closing\nargument, the second of which was also an attack on Morales-Montanez’s credibility. We note that no particular\nnumber of improper comments marks the boundary between flagrant impropriety and non-flagrant impropriety.\nInstead, plain-error determinations are driven by the unique facts of each case. Young, 470 U.S. at 16.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 22\n\n\nMontanez and Acosta because they implied or asserted that a government witness was\ntrustworthy, a defense witness was lying, or a defense witness had broken one of the Ten\nCommandments. The prejudicial effect of the remarks accrued to Acosta, who did not testify, as\nwell as to Morales-Montanez, because the theory of the defense was the same for both.\n\n Second, at least two of the remarks were misleading. One misleading remark was the\nprosecutor’s assertion that Detective Bowles—who testified that he had found the\nmethamphetamine and that it had not been wrapped in clothes as Barnes had described—\n“remembered everything he did.” That assertion suggested that Bowles had an accurate\nmemory, a fact unsupported by evidence. Also misleading was the prosecutor’s claim that\nBarnes was “a proven liar.” The word “proven” could suggest either that Barnes’s testimony had\nbeen undermined by other evidence at trial or (inaccurately) that Barnes’s untruthfulness had\nbeen legally established. Because the prosecutor did not tie the “proven” remark to a discussion\nof Barnes’s testimony, the remark encouraged the jury to take the latter view and trust the\nprosecutor that “anything [Barnes] had to say” had been conclusively discredited.\n\n b. Whether the Remarks Were Isolated or Extensive\n\n The improper remarks were not isolated. In a three-day trial, with evidence presented\nover two days and closing arguments and deliberations taking place on the third, the nine\nimproper remarks were relatively extensive. Nor were they confined to one portion of the\nproceeding. Rather, the prosecutor maligned Morales-Montanez’s prayers to the statue during\ncross-examination on day two of the trial and during closing argument on day three, and he\nassailed both defense witnesses’ credibility, and vouched for government witnesses, at various\npoints during closing argument.\n\n c. Whether the Remarks Were Deliberate or Accidental\n\n Most of the remarks appear to have been deliberate. The prosecutor returned to the\nsubjects of the prayers and credibility several times and in similar terms; evidently, he made a\nchoice to emphasize those subjects. Here was no inadvertent slip of the tongue.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 23\n\n\n “The intentionality of the prosecutor’s improper remarks can be inferred from their\nstrategic use.” Bates, 402 F.3d at 648. In Bates, we vacated a death sentence and remanded for\nresentencing where the prosecutors’ misconduct appeared to have been deliberate because the\nprosecutors “use[d] [inappropriate themes] repeatedly during summation” in the sentencing\nphase of trial. Id. Among other actions, the prosecutors had repeatedly offered their personal\nopinions that the defendant’s mitigation witnesses were not credible. We noted that “[t]he\npersonal opinion of the prosecutors was primarily reserved for evaluating the testimony of the\ndefense’s one disinterested witness, Dr. Griffin. [The defendant’s] case for mitigation rested on\nDr. Griffin and [the defendant’s] mother, and the prosecutors repeatedly undermined Dr.\nGriffin’s testimony by suggesting they did not believe it.” Id. Similarly, here, the defense theory\nrested on the testimony of only two witnesses. The prosecutor attacked the credibility and\ncharacter of both, but he aimed his most direct comments on credibility at Barnes, the more\ndisinterested witness of the two.\n\n d. The Strength of the Evidence Against Morales-Montanez and Acosta\n\n Most importantly, the evidence supporting the convictions, although sufficient, was far\nfrom overwhelming. As mentioned, all evidence tying Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\nmethamphetamine was circumstantial. The government presented the following facts purporting\nto link Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the methamphetamine: (1) the methamphetamine was\nfound in an apartment leased by Acosta; (2) officers saw Morales-Montanez and Acosta at the\napartment several times; (3) officers trailed Morales-Montanez and Acosta driving between the\nhome and the apartment and believed they drove evasively on those trips. All of this evidence\neither tied the methamphetamine to the apartment or tied Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\napartment, but none of it necessarily tied Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\nmethamphetamine. And Morales-Montanez and Acosta admitted having been to the apartment,\nso the jury could have believed their innocent explanation. The jury’s view of Morales-\nMontanez and Barnes’s credibility was therefore central to its guilt-or-innocence determination.\n\n This case differs markedly from those cases in which we have found prosecutorial\nmisconduct outweighed by the strength of the government’s evidence. For example, in Modena,\nwe found misconduct was not flagrant where the prosecutor had made only two improper\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 24\n\n\nremarks during closing argument; the government presented thirty witnesses and over 200\nexhibits in support of the defendant’s conviction for tax-evasion charges; and the defendant\npresented no evidence. 302 F.3d at 629, 635. In Cristini v. McKee, 526 F.3d 888, 902 (6th Cir.\n2008), we found that a prosecutor’s alleged misconduct was not flagrant because the remarks had\nnot been misleading and “the case against the Petitioner was strong”: “[t]hree disinterested\nwitnesses corroborated” the testimony of the petitioner’s co-defendant (who had turned state’s\nevidence), “and one of those [disinterested] witnesses identified the Petitioner.” Here, by\ncontrast, no eyewitness or physical evidence tied Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\nmethamphetamine, and the defense presented an innocent explanation not necessarily\nincompatible with the government’s circumstantial evidence.\n\n Indeed, even one unfairly prejudicial remark may warrant reversal where the evidence of\nguilt is not very strong and the defense offers a non-incriminating explanation. In United States\nv. Love, 534 F.2d 87, 89 (6th Cir. 1976), we reversed the defendant’s conviction for\ncommunicating threats of injury in interstate commerce because the prosecutor had asked—with\nno evidentiary support for the question—whether the defendant’s employer “was part of another\norganization ‘of ill character like [the] Mafia or anything like that.’” Because “the jury found\nappellant not guilty of four counts of the indictment and guilty of only two counts, and since the\nevidence [was] susceptible to an interpretation of innocent behavior, we [could not] regard the\nprejudice as harmless.” Id. Although defense counsel had objected contemporaneously to the\nMafia comment and the Love court did not engage in a flagrancy analysis, the same common\nsense about the effect of prejudicial comments in a close case applies here. The evidence against\nMorales-Montanez and Acosta was not overwhelming, and any one or several of the prosecutor’s\nimproper comments may have tipped the balance toward conviction.\n\n 4. Remaining Arguments by the Government\n\n The government makes two arguments for why the prosecutor’s comments were not\nreversible misconduct. Both fail.\n\n First, the government argues that the aspersions on Barnes’s credibility were “not plainly\nerroneous,” United States Br. at 17, because the defense put Barnes’s credibility in issue by\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 25\n\n\nhaving him testify and by telling the jury during opening statements that “you’re going to\nconclude [Barnes is] telling the truth.” R. 126, PageID 743. However, that the defense has put a\nwitness’s credibility in issue does not mean that the prosecutor may attack credibility any way he\nsees fit. See Francis, 170 F.3d at 552 (“Because [the defendant] took the stand, it was not\nimproper for the prosecutor to question his credibility. The impropriety stems from the manner\nin which she did so [i.e., by stating that the defendant was lying without citing evidence to\nsupport that statement].”). If the government were correct that any time a defense witness takes\nthe stand, his credibility may be attacked in unscrupulous and broadly worded terms as long as\ndefense counsel does not object, then our case law on flagrant prosecutorial misconduct would\nbe cast into doubt. See, e.g., Bates, 402 F.3d at 647–48. What is more, the prosecutor’s repeated\nattacks on Barnes’s credibility during closing argument were disproportionate to defense\ncounsel’s lone prediction at the beginning of trial that the jury would “conclude [Barnes was]\ntelling the truth.”\n\n Second, the government argues that “the district court mitigated any possible prejudicial\nimpact by instructing the jury that arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence.”\nUnited States Br. at 3. The district court did so instruct the jury. See R. 131, PageID 1444–45.\nNevertheless, that general instruction was not sufficient to remedy the effect of the prosecutor’s\nrepeated prejudicial remarks about Morales-Montanez and Barnes and favorable comments on\nthe government’s witnesses. We found a similar instruction inadequate to “cure[] the prejudice\ncaused by” a prosecutor’s misrepresentations of evidence and “attacks on defense counsel’s\ntruthfulness” where, as here, the instruction “was made along with all other routine instructions\nfor evaluating the evidence presented at trial,” and “the instruction was not given at the time of\nthe improper comments” but “was given only after closing arguments had been completed.”\nCarter, 236 F.3d at 787.\n\n In sum, Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s trial was fundamentally unfair because of the\nprosecutor’s flagrant misconduct. Morales-Montanez and Acosta are therefore entitled to a new\ntrial.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 26\n\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s convictions\nand sentences on the methamphetamine count and REMAND for a new trial.\n\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 27\n\n\n _________________\n\n CONCURRENCE\n _________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessica R. ACOSTA (18-5207); Luis R. Morales-Montanez (18-5212), Defendants-Appellants.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-15\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0089p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. > Nos. 18-5207/5212\\n │\\n │\\n JESSICA R. ACOSTA (18-5207); LUIS R. MORALES- │\\n MONTANEZ (18-5212), │\\n Defendants-Appellants. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.\\n No. 5:17-cr-00040-2—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 15, 2019\\n\\n Before: KETHLEDGE, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Russell J. Baldani, BALDANI, ROWLAND & RICHARDSON, Lexington,\\nKentucky, for Appellant in 18-5207. Paul Neel, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant in 18-5212.\\nCharles P. Wisdom, Jr., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Lexington, Kentucky, for\\nAppellee.\\n\\n BUSH, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which KETHLEDGE and WHITE, JJ.,\\njoined. WHITE, J. (pg. 27), delivered a separate concurring opinion in which KETHLEDGE, J.,\\njoined.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. A prosecutor “may strike hard blows” but “is not at\\nliberty to strike foul ones.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). The prosecutor\\ncrossed that line in this case.\\n\\n A jury convicted Luis Morales-Montanez and Jessica Acosta of possession with intent to\\ndistribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, they argue that they were\\nentitled to a judgment of acquittal because the government presented insufficient evidence to\\nsupport their convictions. In the alternative, they argue for a new trial because they allege\\nnumerous errors resulted in a fundamentally unfair proceeding, violating their due process rights.\\nThere was sufficient evidence for their convictions. However, because remarks made by the\\nprosecutor rose to the level of flagrant misconduct and deprived Morales-Montanez and Acosta\\nof a fair trial, we VACATE their convictions and sentences and REMAND for a new trial.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n After a raid on their home, Morales-Montanez and Acosta were indicted for possession\\nwith intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing a detectable amount of\\nmethamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to\\ndistribute marijuana, and possession of firearms in furtherance of the cocaine and marijuana\\noffenses. Both defendants pled guilty to the cocaine, marijuana, and firearms charges, but they\\ncontested the methamphetamine count, which went to trial.\\n\\nA. The Arrests and Searches\\n\\n The following relevant facts were presented at trial, which took place over three days in\\nOctober 2017.\\n\\n In the fall of 2016, Morales-Montanez and Acosta were living with Acosta’s two children\\nat 2428 Larkin Road (the “home”) in Lexington, Kentucky. Acosta had also recently leased an\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\napartment at 2504 Larkin Road (the “apartment”). The manager of the apartment building\\ntestified that she had given Acosta only one key.\\n\\n Morales-Montanez and Acosta were suspected of drug trafficking, so Detective Matthew\\nEvans of the Lexington Police Department began monitoring their movements in fall 2016. On\\nseveral occasions, Evans and his team observed Morales-Montanez and Acosta at the apartment\\nbuilding. Twice, Evans gained entrance to the building and observed them enter the apartment\\nitself. He also observed Morales-Montanez and Acosta driving between the home and the\\napartment building, and he believed they were driving evasively in a manner common to drug\\ndealers who do not wish to be followed. Based on his surveillance, Evans obtained warrants for\\nboth the home and the apartment.\\n\\n Officers from Evans’s team searched the apartment on December 8, 2016. The search\\nrevealed, stashed in a closet, a plastic container filled with approximately two pounds of crystal\\nmethamphetamine. Officers also discovered packing materials, money orders, and air\\nfresheners, which Evans testified were indicative of drug trafficking, in the apartment. While\\nsearching the apartment, officers also found various personal items, including, on a coffee table\\nin the living room, a homework assignment bearing the name of Acosta’s child “J.A.”\\n\\n Also on December 8, Evans arrested Acosta in a traffic stop and went with her to the\\nhome. There, Evans found Morales-Montanez, as well as numerous guns and copious amounts\\nof marijuana and cocaine. The detective also discovered digital scales, packing materials,\\n$42,507 in cash, money orders, a ledger, and a shrine to a statue of Jesus Malverde, who\\nMorales-Montanez later testified at trial is worshiped as a “saint” by marijuana dealers. In\\naddition, Evans found a set of keys to the apartment in the home.\\n\\n Evans read Morales-Montanez and Acosta their rights and questioned them. Confronted\\nwith news of what officers had found in the apartment, Morales-Montanez initially responded\\nthat he knew nothing about the apartment. Shortly thereafter, Morales-Montanez admitted he\\nhad been to the apartment with Acosta, but he continued to deny knowledge of the\\nmethamphetamine. But Morales-Montanez very quickly admitted to dealing in marijuana and\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\ncocaine: in fact, he called himself a “weed man” who had recently expanded into cocaine to beef\\nup his income for the Christmas season.\\n\\n Morales-Montanez and Acosta were detained pending trial. While detained, Morales-\\nMontanez was temporarily housed with a man named Brian Barnes. Barnes was a former\\nmethamphetamine trafficker serving a seventeen-year prison term.\\n\\n We will now pick up the story with Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s version.\\n\\nB. The Defense Theory of the Case\\n\\n Acosta chose not to testify, but Morales-Montanez and Barnes testified for the defense.\\nThe defense presented the following version of events.\\n\\n Acosta knew that Morales-Montanez was running a marijuana operation out of the home,\\nand she was not happy about it. When their relationship was at a crisis point and Morales-\\nMontanez was visiting California, Acosta decided to rent the apartment. However, after Acosta\\nsigned the lease, she and Morales-Montanez patched up their relationship, and Acosta decided to\\nkeep living at the home and to sublet the apartment.\\n\\n One day in late October 2016, Acosta was hanging flyers advertising the apartment at a\\ngrocery store when Brian Barnes (Morales-Montanez’s future cellmate) noticed her and\\nintroduced himself. When Barnes learned that Acosta was seeking to sublet her apartment, he\\ntold her he wanted to rent. Acosta took Barnes to the apartment that day and showed him\\naround. They agreed on a monthly rent of $625, and Barnes gave Acosta a $1,500 up-front\\npayment.\\n\\n As it turned out, Barnes was a large-scale methamphetamine dealer. He maintained\\nmultiple addresses to store drugs and drug paraphernalia, and he needed to move out of his\\nprimary residence because his roommates had deserted him after they learned he was having\\ndrugs shipped to him there. Barnes maintained that that was why he was looking for an\\napartment when he met Acosta. Barnes and Morales-Montanez both also testified at trial that\\nneither Morales-Montanez nor Acosta was aware of Barnes’s profession or of his reason for\\nrenting the apartment.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n Soon Barnes fell behind on his rent. On several occasions, Morales-Montanez and\\nAcosta went to the apartment to try to find him, but he was never there. On one visit, Morales-\\nMontanez and Acosta did come across a stash of guns that Barnes had apparently left in the\\napartment. In place of the missed rent payment, Morales-Montanez took the guns back with him\\nto the home.\\n\\n Morales-Montanez testified that he did not recall ever having driven in an evasive\\nmanner between the home and the apartment. He also testified that the reason he had initially\\ndenied knowing anything about the apartment when questioned by Evans was that he had been\\nafraid of getting in trouble for taking Barnes’s guns.\\n\\n Despite his stated reason for renting the apartment, Barnes testified that he went there\\nonly twice: once with Acosta when they were discussing terms and once very early in the\\nmorning on November 5, 2016. According to Barnes, he received a warning phone call on\\nNovember 4 from a fellow drug dealer, Robert Griffett, who had been detained by the police and\\nhad tipped them to Barnes’s activities before being released. Fearing that the police would seize\\nhis methamphetamine stash from his residence, Barnes immediately packed it into a plastic\\ncontainer and took it, along with his drug packaging materials and his guns, to the apartment.\\n\\n Barnes did not evade the police for long. He was arrested on November 7, 2016, pled\\nguilty to drug offenses, and was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment, to be served at eighty-\\nfive percent for a prison term of seventeen years.\\n\\n Then Morales-Montanez and Acosta were also arrested and charged. Morales-Montanez\\nhappened to be housed with Barnes in jail for several months beginning in early 2017. He had\\nnever met Barnes before that point or known that Barnes was the sublessee of the apartment.\\nAlthough Barnes and Morales-Montanez testified that they never talked about their cases, Barnes\\nstated that through his connections on the outside, he became aware that Morales-Montanez and\\nAcosta had been charged with possession of the very methamphetamine he had secreted in the\\napartment. In January 2017, Barnes asked his attorney to set up a meeting with the prosecutor so\\nthat Barnes could put Morales-Montanez and Acosta in the clear. After the meeting—which\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\ntook place in July 2017—Barnes did not feel that his efforts had been successful, so he wrote to\\ndefense counsel1 and signed on as a defense witness.\\n\\n At trial, Barnes identified defense Exhibit 1 as the container of methamphetamine he said\\nhe had left in the apartment. He testified that he had earlier told a law-enforcement officer he\\nhad wrapped the methamphetamine in “clothes” before leaving it in the apartment, although he\\ndid not remember “[w]hat kind of clothes.” R. 130, PageID 1230. As presented at trial,\\nhowever, the container of methamphetamine was not wrapped in clothes, and the detective who\\nfound the container testified that it had not been “wrapped in anything” at the time. Id. at\\nPageID 1141, 1144.\\n\\nC. Defense Counsel’s First Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal\\n\\n At the close of the evidence, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing\\nthat no reasonable jury could convict Morales-Montanez and Acosta of possession of\\nmethamphetamine on the evidence presented. The court denied the motion.\\n\\nD. The Homework Issue and the Post-Trial Motion\\n\\n During its deliberations, the jury sent out a note asking to see United States Exhibit 6,\\nwhich was a copy of the homework assignment that officers had found in the apartment. The\\ncourt responded by informing the jury that the homework had not been introduced in evidence,\\nso the jury would have to rely on its memory of the homework during deliberations. Later, the\\ncourt realized that the evidence had, in fact, been admitted; the court scheduled a hearing with\\nthe attorneys to determine what to do.\\n\\n Shortly thereafter, Acosta filed, and Morales-Montanez joined, a motion for a new trial\\nand in the alternative for a judgment of acquittal. The memorandum in support of the motion\\nargued that (1) the district court had erred in keeping the homework exhibit from the jury and\\n(2) the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to convict Morales-Montanez and Acosta.\\n\\n\\n\\n 1Morales-Montanez and Acosta each had an attorney. We will refer to either or both simply as “defense\\ncounsel.”\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n The district court held a hearing and denied the motion, reasoning that the homework\\nexhibit was not exculpatory, so any error was harmless, and that the evidence was sufficient to\\nsupport the convictions.\\n\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n\\n On appeal, Morales-Montanez and Acosta again argue that the evidence was insufficient\\nto support their convictions, and they also argue that numerous alleged errors at trial rendered the\\nproceeding fundamentally unfair. They ask this court to remand with instructions to dismiss the\\nmethamphetamine count with prejudice or to reverse the district court’s denial of the new trial\\nmotion. Although Morales-Montanez and Acosta do not explain (and cite no cases explaining)\\nwhy any of their theories of error would entitle them to a dismissal with prejudice of the charges\\nagainst them, the substantive arguments in their briefing make clear that they believe the district\\ncourt erred in denying their motion for a judgment of acquittal. Therefore, we will begin by\\naddressing whether Morales-Montanez and Acosta are entitled to a judgment of acquittal on\\nsufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds.\\n\\nA. Sufficiency of the Evidence\\n\\n We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal based\\non the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Humphrey, 279 F.3d 372, 378 (6th Cir.\\n2002). In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and ask\\nwhether any rational trier of fact could have found Morales-Montanez and Acosta guilty beyond\\na reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). In answering that question,\\nwe must not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations. United States v. Chavis,\\n296 F.3d 450, 455 (6th Cir. 2002). Instead, we must draw all reasonable inferences, including\\ninferences from circumstantial evidence, in favor of the government. United States v. Rozin,\\n664 F.3d 1052, 1058 (6th Cir. 2012). “Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a\\nconviction and such evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.”\\nUnited States v. Wettstain, 618 F.3d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\n Morales-Montanez and Acosta argue that no rational trier of fact could have found they\\nconstructively possessed the methamphetamine found in the apartment.2 The district court gave\\nthe following instruction on constructive possession:\\n\\n The government does not necessarily have to prove that the defendants physically\\n possessed the mixture or substance containing methamphetamine for you to find\\n them guilty of this crime. The law recognizes two kinds of possession, actual\\n possession or constructive possession. Either one of these, if proved by the\\n government, is enough to convict.\\n\\n ....\\n To establish constructive possession, the government must prove that the\\n defendants had the right to exercise physical control over the mixture and knew\\n they had the right and that they intended to exercise physical control over the\\n mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine at\\n some time, either directly or through other persons.\\n ....\\n\\n But understand just being present where something is located does not\\n equal possession. The government must prove that the defendant had actual or\\n constructive possession of the mixture or substance containing methamphetamine,\\n and that they knew they did for you to find them guilty of this crime. This, of\\n course, is all for you to decide.\\n\\nR. 131, PageID 1454–55. The district court’s instruction accurately articulated the elements of\\nconstructive possession. See United States v. Jenkins, 593 F.3d 480, 484 (6th Cir. 2010).\\n\\n Although the evidence against Morales-Montanez and Acosta was far from\\noverwhelming, it was sufficient for a rational jury to convict them of constructive possession\\nwith intent to distribute. The government presented the following evidence. (1) Detective Evans\\nobserved Morales-Montanez and Acosta at the apartment but (2) detectives had never seen\\nBarnes—or anyone else—there. (3) Also, on multiple occasions, Evans or members of his team\\nfollowed Morales-Montanez and Acosta driving between the apartment and the home, and Evans\\nbelieved, based on his experience investigating drug dealers, that they were driving in an evasive\\nmanner to avoid being followed. (4) When Acosta leased the apartment, she was given only one\\n\\n\\n 2Morales-Montanez and Acosta do not dispute that a rational jury could find the “intent” element of\\npossession with intent to distribute if it could find the “possession” element satisfied.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nkey—according to the apartment manager—and yet a ring of multiple keys to the apartment was\\ndiscovered in Evans’s search of the home. That key ring made less plausible Morales-\\nMontanez’s claim that he and Acosta always visited the apartment together.\\n\\n In support of acquittal, by contrast, the defense presented the testimony of Barnes and\\nMorales-Montanez, who both swore that Barnes was responsible for the methamphetamine in the\\napartment. But the jury heard testimony that Barnes was housed with Morales-Montanez in jail,\\nand the jury could have believed that the cellmates came to some agreement by which Barnes\\nwould take responsibility for the methamphetamine. If the jury found these two not to be\\ncredible—a determination that we are not permitted to second-guess, see Chavis, 296 F.3d at\\n455—then the government’s case would look convincing.\\n\\n In addition, several inconsistencies or questionable assertions appeared in Barnes’s or\\nMorales-Montanez’s testimony, and the jury could have attributed them either to innocent\\nmistakes or to lies, as it chose. For example, the government highlighted evidence that Barnes\\nhad received a shipment of methamphetamine at his residence after the date when he claimed to\\nhave moved his drugs, guns, and paraphernalia to the apartment. The appearance of the\\nmethamphetamine at trial—not wrapped in clothes as Barnes had described—also discredited\\nBarnes’s story. Furthermore, the jury could have chosen not to believe that Morales-Montanez\\ninitially denied knowledge of the apartment because he feared trouble over taking Barnes’s guns.\\nThe jury could have believed that he had something more serious to hide.\\n\\n In sum, a significant amount of evidence tied Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\\napartment, and the jury was free to reject in total Barnes’s and Morales-Montanez’s insistence\\nthat Morales-Montanez and Acosta had nothing to do with the methamphetamine found in the\\napartment. Although this was not a straightforward case with direct proof of possession, we\\nmust view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. In that light, we conclude\\nthat a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Morales-Montanez\\nand Acosta “had the right to exercise physical control over the [methamphetamine]” and\\n“intended to exercise physical control over the [methamphetamine],” as the district court\\ninstructed the jury. The district court did not err in denying the motion for a judgment of\\nacquittal or for a new trial on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nB. Fairness of the Trial\\n\\n Notwithstanding that there was enough evidence to support the convictions, we\\nnonetheless vacate them and remand for a new trial because of numerous errors relating to the\\nprosecutor’s misconduct at trial that, considered cumulatively, deprived Morales-Montanez and\\nAcosta of a fair proceeding.\\n\\n Morales-Montanez and Acosta allege that three categories of error occurred during trial\\nand rendered it fundamentally unfair. First, they argue that the district court improperly allowed\\nthe prosecutor to question witnesses about the penalty for the methamphetamine count. Second,\\nthey argue that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Morales-Montanez and the prosecutor’s\\nclosing argument contained numerous prejudicial questions and remarks. And third, they argue\\nthey suffered prejudice when the district court prevented the jury from seeing the homework\\nexhibit during deliberations.\\n\\n Between his cross-examination of Morales-Montanez and his closing argument, the\\nprosecutor made nine improper and prejudicial remarks and questions that resulted in a\\nfundamentally unfair trial. Because we find that this prosecutorial misconduct entitles Morales-\\nMontanez and Acosta to a new trial, we need not address the prosecutor’s questions regarding\\nthe penalty or the homework issue. See United States v. Francis, 170 F.3d 546, 548 (6th Cir.\\n1999) (remanding for a new trial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct and not addressing the\\nappellants’ remaining arguments).\\n\\n 1. Standard of Review\\n\\n Not one of the prosecutor’s statements drew an objection from trial counsel. Therefore,\\nwe may remand for a new trial only if plain error occurred. United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d\\n1380, 1383 (6th Cir. 1994). Plain error has three elements: “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and\\n(3) that affect[s] substantial rights.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997)\\n(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Olano,\\n507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). “An error affects substantial rights if it affect[s] the outcome of the\\ncase.” United States v. Walker, No. 18-1256, 2019 WL 326483, at *3 (6th Cir. Jan. 24, 2019)\\n(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Teh, 535 F.3d 511, 516 (6th Cir.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n2008)). “If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to\\nnotice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or\\npublic reputation of judicial proceedings.” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 (alteration in original)\\n(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 732).\\n\\n To determine whether the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct was “so exceptionally flagrant\\nthat it constitutes plain error, and is grounds for reversal even [though] the defendant did not\\nobject to it,” United States v. Carter, 236 F.3d 777, 783 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Carroll, 26 F.3d\\nat 1385 n.6), we assess four factors:\\n\\n [1] the degree to which the remarks complained of have a tendency to mislead the\\n jury and to prejudice the accused; [2] whether they were isolated or extensive; [3]\\n whether they were deliberately or accidentally placed before the jury[;] and [4]\\n the strength of the competent proofs introduced to establish the guilt of the\\n accused.\\n\\nCarroll, 26 F.3d at 1384 (quoting United States v. Leon, 534 F.2d 667, 679 (6th Cir. 1976)).\\nMorales-Montanez and Acosta argue that the prosecutor committed flagrant misconduct in this\\ncase.3\\n\\n 2. The Prosecutor’s Misconduct\\n\\n a. Vouching or Bolstering\\n\\n First, Morales-Montanez and Acosta argue that the prosecutor improperly vouched for or\\nbolstered the testimony of government witnesses. “Improper vouching occurs when a prosecutor\\nsupports the credibility of a witness by indicating a personal belief in the witness’s\\ncredibility . . . .” Francis, 170 F.3d at 550 (citations omitted). Similarly, “[b]olstering occurs\\nwhen the prosecutor implies that the witness’s testimony is corroborated by evidence known to\\nthe government but not known to the jury.” Id. at 551 (citation omitted).\\n\\n\\n 3Morales-Montanez and Acosta also argue that we may reverse even if the misconduct was not flagrant,\\nbecause this court has reversed convictions for non-flagrant misconduct where defense counsel objected to some of\\nthe comments even if not to all; “the proof of the defendant’s guilt [was] not overwhelming;” and “the trial court\\nfailed to cure the impropriety by failing to admonish the jury.” Francis, 170 F.3d at 550 (citations omitted).\\nHowever, here, defense counsel did not object to any of the improper comments. Therefore, we apply the flagrancy\\nanalysis.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n During closing argument, the prosecutor made the following comments. First, in\\nrecapping the testimony of the detective who had found the methamphetamine in the apartment,\\nthe prosecutor stated: “Detective Bowles who was here, he’s testified very well, he understood\\nand remembered everything he did. Mr. Barnes told you that [the methamphetamine] was\\nwrapped in clothes. No, it wasn’t. As Detective Bowles testified, it was there, he picked it up\\nand he brought it back down.” R. 131, PageID 1391 (emphasis added). Second, the prosecutor\\nlater revisited the subject of Bowles’s finding the methamphetamine:\\n\\n Now, make sure we put the evidence in the proper perspective. When Mr.\\n Barnes testified, I asked him, did you say that the meth was wrapped in clothes?\\n Yes. He said, I said that, that’s what I did. Nobody made that up. It was [another\\n law-enforcement officer, who had interviewed Barnes after his arrest] that came\\n in that said, he told me it was wrapped in clothes. Detective Bowles, a fine young\\n man, picked it up and there it was.\\n\\nId. at PageID 1435 (emphasis added). Third, Morales-Montanez and Acosta take issue with the\\nprosecutor’s characterization of Evans’s work on the case: “Based upon the fine work of\\nDetective Evans, based upon the search warrants that were executed, the interviews that were\\ndone, the two pounds of methamphetamine worth $20,000 is off the street.” Id. at PageID 1402\\n(emphasis added).\\n\\n Although these comments were not direct comments on the detectives’ truthfulness,\\nsaying a witness is a “fine young man” implies that the speaker has a favorable view of the\\nwitness’s truthfulness. Analogously, in United States v. Modena, 302 F.3d 626, 634–35 (6th Cir.\\n2002), we found that a prosecutor’s description of a government witness as a “law-abiding man”\\nwas improper vouching because “a law-abiding man does not, of course, commit perjury.” We\\ndo not mean to suggest that every favorable comment on a government witness constitutes\\nprosecutorial misconduct, but in each case, the effect of such comments must be considered in\\nthe context of the prosecutor’s other statements, the defense arguments, and the evidence\\npresented at trial. See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 16 (1985) (“[E]ach case necessarily\\nturns on its own facts.” (citation omitted)). Here, the positive description of Bowles strikingly\\ndiffered from the prosecutor’s negative portrayals of the defense witnesses, as detailed later.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\n Moreover, we agree with Morales-Montanez and Acosta that the prosecutor’s\\ncharacterization of Bowles’s testimony constituted improper vouching and bolstering. By\\nopining that Bowles had testified “very well,” the prosecutor suggested that he believed\\nBowles’s testimony. And by stating that Bowles “remembered everything he did,” the\\nprosecutor made a factual assertion about Bowles’s memory and reliability that had no basis in\\nthe evidence presented at trial and therefore invited the jury to believe Bowles simply on the\\nprosecutor’s say-so. See Hodge v. Hurley, 426 F.3d 368, 378–79 (6th Cir. 2005) (noting that\\ncomments on credibility “not coupled with a more detailed analysis of the evidence . . . convey\\nan impression to the jury that they should simply trust the State’s judgment” that a witness is or\\nis not credible); cf. Washington v. Hofbauer, 228 F.3d 689, 700 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding\\nmisconduct where the prosecutor suggested a government witness’s story had “been consistent\\nover time,” but “there was no evidence supporting that factual assertion”). In a case where\\ncredibility judgments were almost certainly determinative—because all of the government’s\\nevidence of guilt was circumstantial—such a comment may have been highly prejudicial. See\\nHodge, 426 F.3d at 376.\\n\\n The reference to Evans as having done “fine work” also suggested that the prosecutor\\nviewed Evans as an ethical detective and honest witness. In Walker v. Morrow, 458 F. App’x\\n475, 489–90 (6th Cir. 2012), we held that a prosecutor engaged in improper vouching when\\n(among other comments) she told the jury that a law-enforcement officer had “done an excellent\\njob in this case . . . and we are just asking you to find the truth.” The statement in Walker more\\nclosely tied the officer’s work to the result the prosecutor wanted the jury to reach than the\\nprosecutor’s statement about Evans in this case, but the comments are otherwise similarly\\nphrased, and we find Walker’s reasoning persuasive. Although not overtly a comment on\\ncredibility and perhaps not harmful on its own, the comment on Evans contributed to the overall\\npicture the prosecutor was painting of trustworthy government witnesses, a sharp contrast to the\\npicture he painted of the defense witnesses.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n b. Attacks on Defense Witnesses’ Credibility\\n\\n During his closing argument, the prosecutor repeatedly made known his opinion that the\\ntwo key defense witnesses were not credible. First, the prosecutor offered the following thoughts\\non Barnes:\\n\\n In between the time [Barnes] said he was called by [Robert Griffett, who Barnes\\n claimed warned him against law-enforcement officers] and the time he got\\n arrested, he got yet another package of methamphetamine to the same address\\n where he received the three previous packages. If he was such a smart drug\\n dealer and trying to avoid the police, why would he still have methamphetamine\\n coming to his place? Because he’s lying. He is lying about taking that stuff over\\n [to the apartment].\\n\\nR. 131 at PageID 1396 (emphasis added). Near the end of his closing argument, the prosecutor\\nattacked Barnes again: “Is he a huge drug dealer? Yes, he is. Huge. Is he a weapons trafficker?\\nYes. Is he a money launderer?4 Yes. Should he be entitled to any credibility whatsoever? Not\\nat all. Zero.” Id. at PageID 1400 (emphasis added). And shortly thereafter, the prosecutor was\\naddressing Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s argument that they did not put the\\nmethamphetamine in the apartment when he stated:\\n\\n The only people ever seen going into Apartment 172 as seen by Detective Evans,\\n one and two [i.e., Morales-Montanez and Acosta]. And that’s it. There is not a\\n shred of evidence that allows the sight of anybody else to go in there. Brian\\n Barnes is a proven liar, don’t believe anything he had to say.\\n\\nId. at PageID 1401 (emphasis added).\\n\\n The prosecutor also commented unfavorably on Morales-Montanez’s credibility: “Luis\\nMorales [sic], the worshiper of a deity of a drug trafficking entity who prays for protection from\\npolice, prosecutors, court systems and juries. Is he entitled to any credibility for what he said?\\nNo, not at all.” Id. at PageID 1400 (emphasis added).\\n\\n\\n 4We are in the dark regarding to what the “money launderer” comment referred. Barnes’s testimony\\ncontained no discussion of money laundering or similar activity. Although its prejudicial effect was probably\\nminimal (because the jury already knew Barnes had admitted committing serious drug crimes), the prosecutor’s\\nreference to money laundering appears to have been an allusion to real or imagined facts not in evidence. The\\n“weapons trafficker” comment probably referred to Barnes’s practice of sending shipments of guns to California as\\n“blessings,” a show of appreciation to his methamphetamine suppliers. R. 130, PageID 1221–22.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\n “It is patently improper for a prosecutor either to comment on the credibility of a witness\\nor to express a personal belief that a particular witness is lying.” Hodge, 426 F.3d at 378\\n(citations omitted).\\n\\n [T]wo separate harms . . . arise from such misconduct. First, such comments can\\n convey the impression that evidence not presented to the jury, but known to the\\n prosecutor, supports the charges . . . . Second, the prosecutor’s opinion carries\\n with it the imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the\\n Government’s judgment rather than its own view of the evidence.\\n\\nId. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Young, 470 U.S. at 18–19). The second concern\\nis particularly prominent when “statements by the prosecutor [are] not coupled with a more\\ndetailed analysis of the evidence actually adduced at trial.” Id.\\n\\n Here, the prosecutor’s comments on credibility were especially damaging because the\\ndefense strategy was premised upon getting the jury to believe Morales-Montanez and Barnes.\\nAll of the evidence tying Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the methamphetamine was\\ncircumstantial. To acquit, the jury had only to find Morales-Montanez and Barnes’s stories\\ncredible. The jury did not have to disbelieve the government’s witnesses: it could have\\nreconciled both sides’ testimony by ascribing an innocent interpretation to each time the\\ndetectives testified they had seen Morales-Montanez and Acosta at the apartment. As the district\\ncourt noted in its oral ruling on Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s motion for a judgment of\\nacquittal at the close of the evidence, “it really is a case of credibility for the jury to decide.”\\nR. 130, PageID 1367.\\n\\n We have reversed in the past based on comments similar to the prosecutor’s here. In\\nHodge, we reversed a denial of a writ of habeas corpus to a defendant convicted of child rape\\n“where the only evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction was a jury determination that the\\ncomplaining witness was more credible than the defendant,” and the prosecutor had made\\nnumerous improper comments, including assertions that defense witnesses were lying,\\nsuggestions that the jury could consider character evidence as evidence of guilt, and\\nmisrepresentations of the evidence. 426 F.3d at 371. Among the improper comments was the\\nHodge prosecutor’s statement in his rebuttal argument that “[the defendant] is not what he\\nportrays himself to be, and that is because he is lying to extricate himself from what he’s done.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\n[The complaining witness] is absolutely believable, her family is absolutely believable.” Id. at\\n379 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).\\n\\n In finding that the defense counsel’s failure to object to any of the comments constituted\\nineffective assistance of counsel, we found “a reasonable probability that the result of the\\nproceeding would have been different” had the defense counsel made timely objections. Id. at\\n376. Here, the same logic dictates that there is a reasonable probability the prosecutor’s\\ncomments affected the result at Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s trial: as in Hodge, the jury’s\\ndecision as to guilt or innocence turned on credibility assessments.\\n\\n The government defends the comments on the basis that inconsistencies in Barnes’s story\\nor his conduct created “good reasons to doubt his truthfulness.”5 United States Br. at 17. But\\nsuch doubts do not confer a blanket license to impugn a witness’s credibility. Instead, the\\nprosecutor should highlight inconsistencies with a “detailed analysis of the evidence.” Hodge,\\n426 F.3d at 378; see also Francis, 170 F.3d at 552.\\n\\n It is true that the prosecutor’s comment that Barnes “was lying about taking” the\\nmethamphetamine to the apartment followed a brief rehash of evidence. Specifically, the\\nprosecutor referred to testimony that Barnes had received drugs at his home address even after\\nhaving been alerted to the danger of doing so. That would seem inconsistent with Barnes’s story\\nthat he wanted to move all his drugs and paraphernalia to the apartment as soon as he knew the\\npolice might be after him. Nevertheless, that apparent inconsistency did not inexorably lead to\\nthe conclusion that Barnes was lying. The jury could have reasonably viewed the mailed-\\nmethamphetamine fiasco as the result of Barnes’s shortsightedness in directing drug deliveries\\nbefore his arrest, just as it could have viewed any apparent inconsistencies in his testimony as a\\nresult of mistake or forgetfulness. It was improper for the prosecutor to announce that he had\\nmade up his own mind about the reason for Barnes’s testimony.\\n\\n\\n\\n 5Specifically,the government stresses that Barnes (1) was inconsistent in his recollection of who had called\\nhim and warned him about the police—at trial, he testified that Robert Griffett called him, but in a November 2016\\npost-arrest interview with a law-enforcement officer, Barnes had stated that a man named “J.T.” called him;\\n(2) Barnes did not take responsibility for the methamphetamine or mention Morales-Montanez, Acosta, or the\\napartment at the time of his arrest or in either of two November 2016 post-arrest interviews.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\n The prosecutor’s next statement, that Barnes “[s]hould [not] be entitled to any credibility\\nwhatsoever,” did not accompany a detailed recitation of evidence; it was simply advice to the\\njury about whom to believe. Indeed, the statement suggested that the jury should disbelieve\\nBarnes because he had been involved in criminal activity. Although Federal Rule of Evidence\\n609(a)(1) allows an attorney to impeach a witness’s character for truthfulness by introducing\\nevidence that the witness has a conviction for a crime punishable “by imprisonment for more\\nthan one year”—such as Barnes’s methamphetamine conviction—the prosecutor did not\\nintroduce the conviction as impeachment evidence, and he did not reference the conviction in\\nstating that Barnes was not credible. Thus, the statement simply assumed that Barnes was not\\ncredible because of his criminal past without explaining why that past was relevant to\\ntruthfulness.\\n\\n The third statement about Barnes, that he was “a proven liar,” was also uttered with no\\nevidentiary context. The prosecutor simply tacked it onto his statement that no one other than\\nMorales-Montanez and Acosta had been seen at the apartment during the relevant time period.\\nIndeed, the prosecutor’s assertion that “[t]here is not a shred of evidence that allows the sight of\\nanybody else to go in” the apartment came close to mischaracterization. Barnes’s testimony, of\\ncourse, was evidence that someone else had gone into the apartment, even if it was not\\neyewitness evidence from a detective that someone besides Morales-Montanez or Acosta had\\nbeen “sight[ed]” there. The prosecutor was asking the jury to disregard crucial evidence that\\nsomeone besides the two defendants had been at the apartment because, in the prosecutor’s view,\\nthat evidence came from a liar.\\n\\n We also note that the “proven liar” assertion came within a transcript page of the\\nprosecutor’s “fine work” vouching for Evans. The close proximity of a favorable comment on a\\ngovernment witness to an unfavorable comment on a defense witness heightens the prejudicial\\nnature of both. See Hodge, 426 F.3d at 379–80.\\n\\n Finally, the comment that Morales-Montanez was not “entitled to any credibility” was\\nuntethered to any relevant evidence suggesting untruthfulness. We will address the prosecutor’s\\ncomments about Morales-Montanez thoroughly in the next section, but here we note that, again,\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\nthe prosecutor transgressed the bounds of permissible argument by telling the jury it should not\\nbelieve a defense witness.\\n\\n In sum, the prosecutor committed misconduct by repeatedly expressing his personal\\nopinion that the defense witnesses were not credible. See id. at 378.\\n\\n c. Comments on Morales-Montanez’s Prayers and the Ten Commandments\\n\\n The prosecutor’s references to Morales-Montanez’s worship of the Jesus Malverde statue\\nconstitute their own category of misconduct. First, in questioning Morales-Montanez about the\\nshrine found in the home, the prosecutor conducted the following exchange:\\n\\n Q. You said that—that idol that you worship there is an idol that drug traffickers\\n worship, correct?\\n A. Yes, sir.\\n\\n ....\\n Q. And you would say prayers for protection, right?\\n A. Yes, sir.\\n Q. Pr[a]yers from the police so they don’t get to follow you around, right?\\n A. Yes, sir.\\n Q. Did you say a little prayer before you walked into the courtroom today to your\\n patron saint?\\n A. Did I pray to my saint?\\n Q. Yeah. Did you pray to that idol?\\n A. I prayed to the man upstairs.\\n Q. Uh-huh. But you didn’t, like, pray to the drug trafficker’s god that maybe the\\n jury would believe me, right?\\n A. No, sir.\\n ....\\n Q. You consider yourself Catholic?\\n\\n ....\\n A. I don’t consider myself Catholic, I’m just a Catholic believer.\\n Q. Catholic believer? Do you understand that there is a Commandment that says\\n thou shall not have any god before me?\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\n A. Yes, I understand.\\n Q. But yet you prayed to the idol for drug traffickers for protection?\\n A. I did.\\n\\nR. 130, PageID 1288–89.\\n\\n In closing, the prosecutor again emphasized Morales-Montanez’s prayers:\\n\\n Another shocking thing yesterday was the defendant, Mr. Morales’ [sic]\\n testimony. Thou shall not have any Gods before me. I’ve never ever seen a\\n defendant admit to worshiping Malverde. I’m not going to call it a saint, I’m\\n going to use the word and call it a deity. He worships a deity . . . . He prayed for\\n protection from police. He prays that he doesn’t get caught.\\n For whatever religious or philosophical reasons, he’s still trying to push\\n away from Apartment 172. I wonder how many prayers he has said to Malverde\\n before he walked into the courtroom yesterday. I wonder if what’s going through\\n his mind this morning was, I’m going to say another prayer for protection from\\n the jurors of Central Kentucky.\\n ....\\n\\n Luis Morales [sic], the worshiper of a deity of a drug trafficking entity\\n who prays for protection from police, prosecutors, court systems and juries. Is he\\n entitled to any credibility for what he said? No, not at all.\\n\\nR. 131, PageID 1398–99, 1400.\\n\\n We agree with Morales-Montanez and Acosta that Morales-Montanez’s actual and\\nsupposed prayers to Malverde were “utterly irrelevant” to the question of guilt. Morales-\\nMontanez Br. at 40. What is more, the prosecutor’s statement in closing argument that he\\n“wonder[ed] how many prayers [Morales-Montanez] ha[d] said to Malverde before he walked\\ninto the courtroom yesterday” conflicted with the evidence, because Morales-Montanez had\\ndenied during cross-examination that he prayed for the jury to believe him.\\n\\n In the same vein, we can “find no nonprejudicial explanation” for the prosecutor’s\\nreferences to the Ten Commandments. United States v. Grey, 422 F.2d 1043, 1045 (6th Cir.\\n1970). Morales-Montanez’s adherence or nonadherence to a Commandment had nothing to do\\nwith whether he possessed methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. Furthermore, the\\npart of the closing argument in which the prosecutor invoked the Ten Commandments and stated\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\nthat he had “never ever seen a defendant admit to worshiping Malverde” appears to have been an\\nattempt to arouse the “passions and prejudices” of the jury against Morales-Montanez by\\nsuggesting that he was a particularly reprobate criminal defendant. Bates v. Bell, 402 F.3d 635,\\n642 (6th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).\\n\\n The government nonetheless suggests that the prayers to Malverde were relevant because,\\n“[b]ased on Morales’s [sic] admitted worship of Malverde, the prosecutor could reasonably infer\\nthat Morales [sic] was not restricting his prayers for protection to only his marijuana trade” and\\nthat therefore his denials of any connection with the methamphetamine were not credible.\\nUnited States Br. at 16. This argument has two flaws.\\n\\n First, if that is the inference the prosecutor was making, the prosecutor was also\\nassuming—and asking the jury to assume—that Morales-Montanez in fact was involved in the\\nmethamphetamine trade. Otherwise, he would have no reason to pray for protection in that trade.\\nThat assumption puts the cart before the horse. The only evidence presented at trial that\\nMorales-Montanez was dealing methamphetamine was the two pounds found in the apartment,\\nand it was precisely Morales-Montanez’s connection to those two pounds that the prosecutor\\nsought to prove. More likely, the prosecutor was asking the jury to infer that Morales-Montanez\\nwas a methamphetamine dealer because he worshiped the Malverde statue—an unreasonable\\ninference, because the government admits that Morales-Montanez described Malverde as the\\nsaint of marijuana traffickers (as Morales-Montanez testified, the word “Malverde” in Spanish\\nmeans “bad green”).6 R. 130, PageID 1276. More likely still, the prosecutor was merely\\nattempting to put Morales-Montanez in a bad light as someone steeped in drug culture,\\ncontinually violating the first Commandment.\\n\\n That leads to the second point: if the prosecutor was attempting to impeach Morales-\\nMontanez’s credibility, he was doing so based on inadmissible considerations. American\\n\\n\\n 6One of the government’s witnesses testified at trial that Malverde was “the patron saint of drug dealers”\\nand was “commonly seen” in connection with “some of the larger scale drug traffickers.” R. 126, PageID 782. That\\ntestimony could suggest that the “saint” was associated with drugs other than marijuana. However, no testimony\\nwas presented tying Malverde to methamphetamine specifically, and even the government notes that the statue was\\n“an indicator of marijuana activity.” United States Br. at 16. Of course, Morales-Montanez had already pled guilty\\nto marijuana activity, and it was not in issue at trial.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\n“[c]ourts universally condemn the injection of religion into legal proceedings.” United States v.\\nRoach, 502 F.3d 425, 436 (6th Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks\\nomitted) (quoting Hicks v. Collins, 384 F.3d 204, 223 (6th Cir. 2004)). Here, the prosecutor did\\nmore than “briefly highlight[] [Morales-Montanez’s] testimony” with respect to Malverde, as the\\ngovernment argues; he also elicited testimony on Morales-Montanez’s Catholic beliefs and then\\nimplied that Morales-Montanez was violating a biblical Commandment. United States Br. at 16.\\nUnder Federal Rule of Evidence 610, “[e]vidence of a witness’s religious beliefs or opinions is\\nnot admissible to attack or support the witness’s credibility.” By the same token, credibility\\narguments based on religious affiliations or practices are not favored. Cf. United States v.\\nRogers, 556 F.3d 1130, 1141 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Rule 610 and assuming without deciding\\nthat a closing-argument reference to a government witness’s having worn a cross was improper).\\n\\n We hold that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct through his questions and remarks\\nabout the Malverde statue.\\n\\n 3. Flagrancy\\n\\n Having concluded that nine remarks by the prosecutor were improper,7 we ask whether\\nthey were flagrant and therefore warrant reversal despite defense counsel’s failure to preserve\\nobjections. See Carter, 236 F.3d at 783. They were and they do.\\n\\n As stated, when determining whether prosecutorial misconduct is flagrant and amounts to\\nplain error, we consider four factors. See Carroll, 26 F.3d at 1384. Here, all four of the factors\\nsupport a finding of flagrancy.\\n\\n a. The Tendency of the Remarks to Mislead the Jury and to Prejudice the\\n Accused\\n\\n All of the challenged remarks had “a tendency to mislead the jury” or “to prejudice the\\naccused.” Id. (quoting Leon, 534 F.2d at 679). First, the remarks were prejudicial to Morales-\\n\\n 7Three vouching or bolstering remarks; three attacks on Barnes’s credibility; and three attacks on Morales-\\nMontanez’s worship of the statue—one line of questioning during cross-examination and two sections of the closing\\nargument, the second of which was also an attack on Morales-Montanez’s credibility. We note that no particular\\nnumber of improper comments marks the boundary between flagrant impropriety and non-flagrant impropriety.\\nInstead, plain-error determinations are driven by the unique facts of each case. Young, 470 U.S. at 16.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\nMontanez and Acosta because they implied or asserted that a government witness was\\ntrustworthy, a defense witness was lying, or a defense witness had broken one of the Ten\\nCommandments. The prejudicial effect of the remarks accrued to Acosta, who did not testify, as\\nwell as to Morales-Montanez, because the theory of the defense was the same for both.\\n\\n Second, at least two of the remarks were misleading. One misleading remark was the\\nprosecutor’s assertion that Detective Bowles—who testified that he had found the\\nmethamphetamine and that it had not been wrapped in clothes as Barnes had described—\\n“remembered everything he did.” That assertion suggested that Bowles had an accurate\\nmemory, a fact unsupported by evidence. Also misleading was the prosecutor’s claim that\\nBarnes was “a proven liar.” The word “proven” could suggest either that Barnes’s testimony had\\nbeen undermined by other evidence at trial or (inaccurately) that Barnes’s untruthfulness had\\nbeen legally established. Because the prosecutor did not tie the “proven” remark to a discussion\\nof Barnes’s testimony, the remark encouraged the jury to take the latter view and trust the\\nprosecutor that “anything [Barnes] had to say” had been conclusively discredited.\\n\\n b. Whether the Remarks Were Isolated or Extensive\\n\\n The improper remarks were not isolated. In a three-day trial, with evidence presented\\nover two days and closing arguments and deliberations taking place on the third, the nine\\nimproper remarks were relatively extensive. Nor were they confined to one portion of the\\nproceeding. Rather, the prosecutor maligned Morales-Montanez’s prayers to the statue during\\ncross-examination on day two of the trial and during closing argument on day three, and he\\nassailed both defense witnesses’ credibility, and vouched for government witnesses, at various\\npoints during closing argument.\\n\\n c. Whether the Remarks Were Deliberate or Accidental\\n\\n Most of the remarks appear to have been deliberate. The prosecutor returned to the\\nsubjects of the prayers and credibility several times and in similar terms; evidently, he made a\\nchoice to emphasize those subjects. Here was no inadvertent slip of the tongue.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\n “The intentionality of the prosecutor’s improper remarks can be inferred from their\\nstrategic use.” Bates, 402 F.3d at 648. In Bates, we vacated a death sentence and remanded for\\nresentencing where the prosecutors’ misconduct appeared to have been deliberate because the\\nprosecutors “use[d] [inappropriate themes] repeatedly during summation” in the sentencing\\nphase of trial. Id. Among other actions, the prosecutors had repeatedly offered their personal\\nopinions that the defendant’s mitigation witnesses were not credible. We noted that “[t]he\\npersonal opinion of the prosecutors was primarily reserved for evaluating the testimony of the\\ndefense’s one disinterested witness, Dr. Griffin. [The defendant’s] case for mitigation rested on\\nDr. Griffin and [the defendant’s] mother, and the prosecutors repeatedly undermined Dr.\\nGriffin’s testimony by suggesting they did not believe it.” Id. Similarly, here, the defense theory\\nrested on the testimony of only two witnesses. The prosecutor attacked the credibility and\\ncharacter of both, but he aimed his most direct comments on credibility at Barnes, the more\\ndisinterested witness of the two.\\n\\n d. The Strength of the Evidence Against Morales-Montanez and Acosta\\n\\n Most importantly, the evidence supporting the convictions, although sufficient, was far\\nfrom overwhelming. As mentioned, all evidence tying Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\\nmethamphetamine was circumstantial. The government presented the following facts purporting\\nto link Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the methamphetamine: (1) the methamphetamine was\\nfound in an apartment leased by Acosta; (2) officers saw Morales-Montanez and Acosta at the\\napartment several times; (3) officers trailed Morales-Montanez and Acosta driving between the\\nhome and the apartment and believed they drove evasively on those trips. All of this evidence\\neither tied the methamphetamine to the apartment or tied Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\\napartment, but none of it necessarily tied Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\\nmethamphetamine. And Morales-Montanez and Acosta admitted having been to the apartment,\\nso the jury could have believed their innocent explanation. The jury’s view of Morales-\\nMontanez and Barnes’s credibility was therefore central to its guilt-or-innocence determination.\\n\\n This case differs markedly from those cases in which we have found prosecutorial\\nmisconduct outweighed by the strength of the government’s evidence. For example, in Modena,\\nwe found misconduct was not flagrant where the prosecutor had made only two improper\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\nremarks during closing argument; the government presented thirty witnesses and over 200\\nexhibits in support of the defendant’s conviction for tax-evasion charges; and the defendant\\npresented no evidence. 302 F.3d at 629, 635. In Cristini v. McKee, 526 F.3d 888, 902 (6th Cir.\\n2008), we found that a prosecutor’s alleged misconduct was not flagrant because the remarks had\\nnot been misleading and “the case against the Petitioner was strong”: “[t]hree disinterested\\nwitnesses corroborated” the testimony of the petitioner’s co-defendant (who had turned state’s\\nevidence), “and one of those [disinterested] witnesses identified the Petitioner.” Here, by\\ncontrast, no eyewitness or physical evidence tied Morales-Montanez and Acosta to the\\nmethamphetamine, and the defense presented an innocent explanation not necessarily\\nincompatible with the government’s circumstantial evidence.\\n\\n Indeed, even one unfairly prejudicial remark may warrant reversal where the evidence of\\nguilt is not very strong and the defense offers a non-incriminating explanation. In United States\\nv. Love, 534 F.2d 87, 89 (6th Cir. 1976), we reversed the defendant’s conviction for\\ncommunicating threats of injury in interstate commerce because the prosecutor had asked—with\\nno evidentiary support for the question—whether the defendant’s employer “was part of another\\norganization ‘of ill character like [the] Mafia or anything like that.’” Because “the jury found\\nappellant not guilty of four counts of the indictment and guilty of only two counts, and since the\\nevidence [was] susceptible to an interpretation of innocent behavior, we [could not] regard the\\nprejudice as harmless.” Id. Although defense counsel had objected contemporaneously to the\\nMafia comment and the Love court did not engage in a flagrancy analysis, the same common\\nsense about the effect of prejudicial comments in a close case applies here. The evidence against\\nMorales-Montanez and Acosta was not overwhelming, and any one or several of the prosecutor’s\\nimproper comments may have tipped the balance toward conviction.\\n\\n 4. Remaining Arguments by the Government\\n\\n The government makes two arguments for why the prosecutor’s comments were not\\nreversible misconduct. Both fail.\\n\\n First, the government argues that the aspersions on Barnes’s credibility were “not plainly\\nerroneous,” United States Br. at 17, because the defense put Barnes’s credibility in issue by\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 25\\n\\n\\nhaving him testify and by telling the jury during opening statements that “you’re going to\\nconclude [Barnes is] telling the truth.” R. 126, PageID 743. However, that the defense has put a\\nwitness’s credibility in issue does not mean that the prosecutor may attack credibility any way he\\nsees fit. See Francis, 170 F.3d at 552 (“Because [the defendant] took the stand, it was not\\nimproper for the prosecutor to question his credibility. The impropriety stems from the manner\\nin which she did so [i.e., by stating that the defendant was lying without citing evidence to\\nsupport that statement].”). If the government were correct that any time a defense witness takes\\nthe stand, his credibility may be attacked in unscrupulous and broadly worded terms as long as\\ndefense counsel does not object, then our case law on flagrant prosecutorial misconduct would\\nbe cast into doubt. See, e.g., Bates, 402 F.3d at 647–48. What is more, the prosecutor’s repeated\\nattacks on Barnes’s credibility during closing argument were disproportionate to defense\\ncounsel’s lone prediction at the beginning of trial that the jury would “conclude [Barnes was]\\ntelling the truth.”\\n\\n Second, the government argues that “the district court mitigated any possible prejudicial\\nimpact by instructing the jury that arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence.”\\nUnited States Br. at 3. The district court did so instruct the jury. See R. 131, PageID 1444–45.\\nNevertheless, that general instruction was not sufficient to remedy the effect of the prosecutor’s\\nrepeated prejudicial remarks about Morales-Montanez and Barnes and favorable comments on\\nthe government’s witnesses. We found a similar instruction inadequate to “cure[] the prejudice\\ncaused by” a prosecutor’s misrepresentations of evidence and “attacks on defense counsel’s\\ntruthfulness” where, as here, the instruction “was made along with all other routine instructions\\nfor evaluating the evidence presented at trial,” and “the instruction was not given at the time of\\nthe improper comments” but “was given only after closing arguments had been completed.”\\nCarter, 236 F.3d at 787.\\n\\n In sum, Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s trial was fundamentally unfair because of the\\nprosecutor’s flagrant misconduct. Morales-Montanez and Acosta are therefore entitled to a new\\ntrial.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 26\\n\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE Morales-Montanez and Acosta’s convictions\\nand sentences on the methamphetamine count and REMAND for a new trial.\\n\\n Nos. 18-5207/5212 United States v. Acosta, et al. Page 27\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE\\n _________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2076,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4619720,"string":"4,619,720"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Peter J. MAGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD., Defendant-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Peter Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-15"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1421"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Guy, Sutton\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888510/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"030concurrence\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888511/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0090p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n PETER J. MAGER, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-1421\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD., │\\n Defendant-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.\\n No. 2:16-cv-00145—Gordon J. Quist, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: April 30, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 15, 2019\\n\\n Before: GUY, SUTTON, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Michael B. Gunzburg, RIDGE & DOWNES, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant. Mary\\nC. O’Donnell, GALLAGHER SHARP LLP, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:\\nMichael B. Gunzburg, James T. Foley, RIDGE & DOWNES, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant.\\nMary C. O’Donnell, GALLAGHER SHARP LLP, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n\\n GUY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SUTTON and NALBANDIAN, JJ.,\\njoined. SUTTON, J. (pp. 12–14), delivered a separate concurring opinion.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. Peter Mager sought to recover damages under the\\nFederal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq., for injuries he allegedly\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 2\\n\\n\\nsustained while employed by Wisconsin Central Ltd. (WCL) as a trackman at a railway yard near\\nMarquette, Michigan. Mager appeals the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice, which was\\nordered as a sanction primarily for his and his attorney’s conduct at a court-ordered independent\\nmedical examination. Reviewing the dismissal for abuse of discretion, we affirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Mager alleged that he was seriously and permanently injured on July 29, 2013, when he\\nslipped on hydraulic oil that had leaked onto the rear deck of a truck where he was working.\\nMager filed suit in June 2016, was deposed in June 2017, and was sent notice that defendant had\\nscheduled an independent medical examination (IME) in early August 2017. Plaintiff’s counsel,\\nJames T. Foley, objected to the IME because the examiner’s office was in Appleton,\\nWisconsin—a substantial drive from where Mager lived in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.\\nThat prompted WCL, through its counsel Mary O’Donnell, to move both for an order compelling\\nthe IME pursuant to Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to delay the third-\\nparty mediation scheduled for late August 2017. At a hearing on the motion on September 27,\\ncounsel reached an agreement at the magistrate judge’s urging. Namely, it was agreed that\\nMager would submit to the IME, that WCL would pay his mileage, and that a settlement\\nconference would be scheduled with the court in lieu of mediation. A new Case Management\\nOrder was promptly entered on September 28, 2017.\\n\\n Once the IME was rescheduled, Mager was asked to complete a five-page written\\nquestionnaire prior to the appointment. That questionnaire—which is in the record—inquired\\ninto Mager’s complaints, medical history, medications, prior evaluations, and how and where his\\ninjury occurred. When Foley objected to the questionnaire as unnecessary in light of plaintiff’s\\nrecent deposition, O’Donnell brought the matter before the magistrate judge by way of a\\nconference call. O’Donnell asked that Mager be required to either complete the questionnaire or\\nbe interviewed by a doctor’s assistant. The magistrate judge “determined that background\\ninformation was necessary for the IME.” Accordingly, a Rule 35 Order was entered the next day\\nexpressly directing Mager to “appear at the IME on October 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. C.S.T., for\\nan interview by a physician assistant and for Dr. Revord to conduct an IME. The interview and\\nexam shall not exceed three (3) hours.” (Emphasis added.) No other conditions were specified.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 3\\n\\n\\n Mager appeared for the IME as directed and was joined there by his attorney James\\nFoley, who not only remained present throughout the appointment but also surreptitiously made\\nan audio recording of the visit. Later, Foley conceded that he did so without prior notice to\\ndefense counsel; stated that he regularly attended IMEs with other clients; and explained that he\\nhad determined ahead of time that one-party-consent recording is legal in Wisconsin. As a result\\nof that recording, however, there can be no dispute that Mager himself repeatedly declined to\\nanswer relevant questions about his condition, his medications, and how the injury occurred.\\n\\n An unofficial transcript of the recording1 reflects that although Mager provided some\\nidentifying information to the receptionist upon arrival, he and Foley did not allow his driver’s\\nlicense to be copied. An assistant then escorted Mager and Foley to an exam room, where she\\nattempted to conduct an interview. Mager was asked what problems or concerns he wanted to\\nhave addressed—one of the questions highlighted on the questionnaire—but Mager would not do\\nso and said he had already answered questions about his problems during his deposition. Foley\\ninterjected that Mager was there to be evaluated at defendant’s request and not to have any\\nproblems addressed. The assistant explained that the doctor still wanted some of the questions\\nanswered, but Mager replied that he was sure that they had all of his medical records. Finally,\\nMager declined to list the medications he was taking, again referring the assistant to the\\ndeposition transcript that he had brought with him. That concluded the assistant’s attempt to\\ninterview Mager.\\n\\n Forewarned, Dr. Revord introduced himself to Mager and Foley; confirmed that Mager\\ndid not want to answer any questions; indicated that he had reviewed Mager’s records; and took\\nthe copy of Mager’s deposition when it was offered. During that exchange, Foley also stated that\\nMager was “not trying to be an obstructionist” but did not want to “rehash” his deposition\\ntestimony. Dr. Revord explained that he was there to see Mager, listen to his story, and write a\\nreport evaluating his condition and what had caused it. Dr. Revord tried to ask about how the\\ninjury occurred and about Mager’s physical problems, but Mager referred him to the deposition\\n\\n 1In fairly contentious briefing, WCL’s counsel impugns the transcript because it was made by an\\nunidentified individual in Foley’s office. Despite having received a copy of the recording, however, WCL does not\\nsuggest that the transcript is inaccurate in any way. Indeed, WCL relies on that very transcript as proof of deliberate\\nviolation of the Rule 35 Order.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 4\\n\\n\\nfor those answers. The full exchange was as follows:\\n\\n [Dr. Revord]: . . . Now I was a little confused. You’re talking in the summons of\\n oil and slipping in the back of a truck but on your, when you filled out the injury\\n report that day, you were saying you were walking to the front door of the truck\\n and your legs gave way.\\n [Peter Mager]: Everything is in the deposition there.\\n DR: Got it.\\n PM: We went over all the, all the stuff.\\n DR: Got it.\\n PM: I’m not trying to give you a hard time.\\n DR: I understand.\\n PM: All the information should be there.\\n DR: I think you are smart to listen to your attorney. If your attorney, if my\\n attorney told me to dye my hair red, I’d dye my hair red. You know, so if your\\n attorney has told you not to …\\n [FOLEY]: You’re assuming I told him that.\\n DR: to answer specific questions.\\n JTF: That might be his own, his own line of thinking.\\n DR: He had told me, we had been told, eh, that . . . Well is it, let me ask you, is it\\n your idea not to fill out the form?\\n JTF: That’s not relevant doc.\\n PM: I’m complying with the Order. They told me I had to come down here and\\n be examined by you.\\n DR: Very good. Ok I will go with the history in the chart and what you said\\n when you filled out the initial report.\\n (inaudible)\\n Ok great. Do you want to tell me what problems you are having or would you\\n rather I just look at your deposition?\\n PM: It’s all in the deposition.\\n\\nMager then complied as Dr. Revord conducted a physical examination. Lastly, Dr. Revord asked\\nMager what medications he was currently taking, but Mager declined to answer and responded\\nthat it was all in his deposition and medical records. That concluded the IME.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 5\\n\\n\\n Dr. Revord prepared a six-page report the same day, which noted Mager’s refusals to\\nanswer questions, relied on a review of Mager’s medical and other records, and concluded—in\\nshort—that Mager presented with a “volitional” tremor, had no significant pathology in his\\nlumbar region, required no further treatment, and was asserting contradictory claims about how\\nthe injury occurred. The report added that Mager’s deposition “did not contain the answers to\\nthe questions [Dr. Revord] was asking him.” The deposition itself is not part of the district court\\nrecord.2\\n\\n Ten days later, WCL moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) of\\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Mager had violated the “spirit and letter” of the\\nRule 35 Order. WCL also argued that it had been denied the opportunity to object to Foley’s\\npresence or to have the magistrate judge consider whether to allow Foley’s presence as a\\ncondition of the IME. Plaintiff’s response to the motion was filed one day late—at 1:30 a.m. on\\nNovember 15—and revealed the audio recording. Defendant replied on November 21.\\n\\n A hearing was held on November 28, 2017, which also was the date set for the agreed\\nsettlement conference. That conference was cancelled, however, because Foley had failed to\\nsend a “confidential settlement letter” to the magistrate judge as directed by the Case\\nManagement Order. Although the magistrate judge indicated his intention to impose monetary\\nsanctions on counsel for that failure, an order to that effect was not entered prior to the dismissal.\\n\\n Next, the magistrate judge asked Foley about his and his client’s conduct at the IME.\\nFoley insisted that Mager had complied by appearing to be interviewed; stated that he was\\npresent at Mager’s request; and explained that both his presence and the recording were in\\nresponse to concerns that the IME might be used as a “de facto deposition.” O’Donnell\\ncountered that the circumstances showed intentional defiance of the court’s order. On December\\n28, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation setting forth the facts,\\naddressing the relevant factors, and concluding that dismissal was warranted because of the\\n“flagrant and repeated misconduct exhibited by Plaintiff and his attorney.” Over plaintiff’s\\nobjections, the district court adopted the R&R and dismissed the complaint with prejudice on\\n\\n 2Dr. Revord’s report also commented that although Mager had refused to provide identification, “claimant\\nappears to be the same individual . . . [in] photographs provided to me.” Nothing in the record suggests otherwise.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 6\\n\\n\\nMarch 9, 2018. Plaintiff appealed, and, notably, he is no longer represented by Foley.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n The decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a discovery obligation or\\nother court order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey\\nClub, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976) (per curiam); see also Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176\\nF.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999); Harmon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 110 F.3d 364, 366 (6th Cir. 1997).\\n\\n Rule 37(b) specifically authorizes the imposition of sanctions for failure to comply with a\\nRule 35 Order, or for failing to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order under Rule 16(f)(1)(C)\\nof the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), “a district court may sanction\\nparties who fail to comply with its orders in a variety of ways, including dismissal of the\\nlawsuit.” Bass v. Jostens, Inc., 71 F.3d 237, 241 (6th Cir. 1995). Four factors are to be\\nconsidered in determining whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with\\na discovery obligation or other court order:\\n\\n (1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether\\n the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party’s conduct; (3) whether the\\n dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and\\n (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal\\n was ordered.\\n\\nUnited States v. Reyes, 307 F.3d 451, 458 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363).\\n“Although no one factor is dispositive, dismissal is proper if the record demonstrates delay or\\ncontumacious conduct.” Id.; see also Harmon, 110 F.3d at 366-67. “Contumacious conduct\\nrefers to behavior that is perverse in resisting authority and stubbornly disobedient.” Carpenter\\nv. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 705 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks\\nomitted).3\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3When Rule 37(b) applies, there is no need to rely on the court’s inherent powers or on Rule 41(b)’s\\nauthorization to dismiss for failure “to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n41(b); see also Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S.\\n197, 207 (1958).\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 7\\n\\n\\n A. Willfulness, Bad Faith, or Fault\\n\\n To show that a party’s failure to comply was motivated by bad faith, willfulness, or fault,\\nthe conduct “must display either an intent to thwart judicial proceedings or a reckless disregard\\nfor the effect of [his] conduct on those proceedings.” Carpenter, 723 F.3d at 705 (alteration in\\noriginal) (quoting Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005)). This court has\\nexpressed reluctance to uphold a dismissal “merely to discipline an errant attorney” to the\\ndetriment of an innocent client. Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363 (citation omitted); see also Mulbah v.\\nDetroit Bd. of Educ., 261 F.3d 586, 590 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, notwithstanding the Supreme\\nCourt’s declaration that dismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint based on his attorney’s unexcused\\nconduct would not impose an undue penalty on the client in Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.\\n626, 633-34 (1962), this court has instructed that “[d]ismissal is usually inappropriate where the\\nneglect is solely the fault of the attorney,” Carpenter, 723 F.3d at 704 (alteration in original and\\ncitation omitted).\\n\\n Here, although there were some failures that were attributable solely to counsel, the\\nmagistrate judge expressly found that “Plaintiff and his attorney acted in bad faith and willfully\\nviolated the [Rule 35] discovery order” that “required Plaintiff to submit to an interview.”\\nBecause that finding is supported by the record, it was not an abuse of discretion to find this\\nfactor weighs in favor of dismissal.\\n\\n Late or Missing Filings. The magistrate judge identified two instances of failure to\\ncomply with a scheduling or pretrial order: (1) the tardy filing of the response to the motion to\\ndismiss; and (2) the failure to submit the confidential settlement letter to the magistrate judge.\\nSubmission of a settlement letter was expressly required by court order. The failure to submit\\nthe letter caused the cancellation of the settlement conference on the day it was scheduled to\\noccur, and the magistrate judge indicated his intention to impose sanctions at the time.\\n\\n Violation of Rule 35 Order. A court “may order a party whose mental or physical\\ncondition . . . is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably\\nlicensed or certified examiner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1). The order is to be “made only on a\\nmotion for good cause,” and “must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 8\\n\\n\\nexamination, as well as the person or persons who will perform it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2)(A),\\n(B). There is no dispute that Mager’s physical condition was in controversy. Both the extent\\nand cause of his injuries were contested and central to his claim, and counsel agreed that he\\nwould submit to the examination on the condition that defendant pay his mileage. Plaintiff relies\\non email correspondence to suggest that it was defense counsel who asked that the questionnaire\\nbe completed. Be that as it may, what matters is that, as the magistrate judge found, the order\\nrequiring Mager to submit to an interview “was the result of a telephone conference in which\\nPlaintiff’s counsel discussed his concerns with allowing an interview.” In other words,\\nnotwithstanding Foley’s objections and concerns, Mager was expressly ordered to submit to an\\ninterview as part of the IME.\\n\\n Mager cannot credibly claim either that he was unaware of the obligation or that he\\ncomplied with it by sitting for the interview but declining to answer questions regarding his\\ncondition, his current medications, or how his injury occurred. Foley represented that he and\\nMager had discussed their concerns about the interview, and Foley denied that he told Mager\\nwhat to do. The fact is, Mager arrived for the IME with a copy of his deposition transcript and\\nhis attorney in tow, and then proceeded to repeatedly deflect questions by stating that the\\nanswers could be found in his deposition or prior medical records. Now that he is no longer\\nrepresented by Foley, plaintiff asserts that it “was unreasonable for the court to conclude that he\\ndid anything other than follow the instructions of his attorney when he attended the IME.” But\\nMager cannot escape the consequences of his own actions by laying blame on the advice of\\ncounsel. The actions that Mager took with the support of Foley were deliberate and calculated to\\ncircumvent the order requiring him to submit to an interview as part of the IME.\\n\\n Counsel’s Presence and Secret Recording. Although not a violation of the Rule 35\\nOrder itself, the magistrate judge found that Foley’s unexpected attendance at and surreptitious\\nrecording of the IME “show[ed] bad faith and a lack of respect for the integrity of the legal\\nprofession.” Plaintiff’s new counsel concedes that Foley “should have discussed his desire to\\nattend and record the IME with opposing counsel and, if necessary, raised the issue with the\\ncourt prior to the IME.” Admitting that Foley’s conduct should not be condoned, plaintiff argues\\nthat Mager had no way of knowing that it was improper. But Mager’s hands are not so clean.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 9\\n\\n\\n Foley and Mager were concerned that the examiner was a defense-side expert who may\\ntry to elicit information adverse to their case—i.e., the “de facto” deposition argument—and\\n“discussed the advantages of audio-taping the entire IME event.” (Pl’s Br., p. 17.) There is no\\nreason to doubt that Mager knew Foley was secretly recording the visit on a hidden cell phone,\\nwhich was deceitful even if not actually illegal in Wisconsin. That recording, in turn, shows that\\nFoley’s presence provided support to Mager and furthered the concerted and deliberate effort to\\nthwart the court-ordered interview and avoid questions they did not want to have to answer.\\nPlaintiff’s new counsel acknowledges that “[e]ven in state courts where attorneys often attend\\nand videotape an IME, it is most often done with notice to opposing counsel.” (Reply Br., p. 5.)\\nIt should also go without saying, that, even then, the recording would be done in the open.\\n\\n Failure to Request Conditions. These actions were found to be particularly egregious\\nbecause plaintiff’s counsel knew or should have known that “federal courts generally do not\\nallow a third-party to be present during an IME or to have an IME recorded unless the party has\\nestablished a special need or good cause.” Plaintiff does not dispute that this is the general rule,\\nalthough this court has not had occasion to address the parameters of the trial court’s discretion\\nto grant or deny such a request. See, e.g., Elder v. Harrison Twp., No. 10-cv-13144, 2014 WL\\n6668696, at *3-5 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 24, 2014) (finding inherently adversarial nature was not\\nsufficient reason); Lahar v. Oakland Cty., No. 05-72920, 2006 WL 2269340, at *7-8 (E.D. Mich.\\nAug. 8, 2006) (finding interest in assuring accuracy was insufficient reason); but see Gohl v.\\nLivonia Pub. Schs., No. 12-cv-15199, 2015 WL 1469749, at *2-5 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2015)\\n(allowing parental presence for exam of children with cognitive deficiencies but finding no good\\ncause for it to be recorded).\\n\\n Nor is there reason to think the state courts would condone what happened here. See,\\ne.g., Metro. Prop. & Cas. v. Overstreet, 103 S.W.3d 31, 39 (Ky. 2003) (Kentucky’s similar rule\\nallows third persons to attend where there is good cause, although an attorney’s presence is\\n“most likely to be problematic because of the potential to unfairly disrupt the examination”).\\nIndeed, even though Michigan law provides a statutory right to have counsel present during an\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 10\\n\\n\\nIME, that condition would be included in the order. See Mich. Ct. R. 2.311 (order “may provide\\nthat the attorney for the person to be examined may be present at the examination”).4\\n\\n It was not an abuse of discretion to find that the concerted actions of plaintiff and his\\nattorney displayed an intent to thwart the judicial proceedings, or at least a reckless disregard for\\nthe effect of that conduct on the proceedings. Nor is this a case in which the dismissal was\\nmerely to discipline an attorney “to the detriment of an innocent client.” Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363.\\nThis factor weighs in favor of dismissal.\\n\\n B. Prejudice to the Adversary\\n\\n As noted earlier, plaintiff conceded that prejudice resulted from the cancellation of the\\nsettlement conference on the day it was scheduled to occur. The magistrate judge also found that\\nWCL was prejudiced because Mager and Foley failed to comply with the order requiring him to\\nsubmit to an interview as part of the IME. Plaintiff argues that there was no prejudice because\\nthe refusals did not prevent Dr. Revord from preparing his report and providing an opinion based\\non a physical examination and review of the prior medical records. In fact, the report did not\\nidentify the conditions that Mager claimed were disabling, describe the manner of the injury, or\\nlist the medications he was taking at the time. Nor did Dr. Revord believe the deposition\\nanswered the questions he was asking. Plaintiff counters that Dr. Revord did not insist on\\nanswers, but Dr. Revord was not wrong in believing that it was not his place to do so. The\\nmagistrate judge found that WCL was prevented “from receiving an expert report with all the\\nmedical information that the physician was seeking.” Although the report was favorable to the\\ndefense, it was arguably incomplete and potentially subject to impeachment. Plaintiff has not\\nshown it was clear error to conclude that the deliberate circumvention of the Rule 35 Order\\nprejudiced the ability of the defense to rely on the IME report.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4Plaintiff’s new counsel wisely abandoned reliance on Wright & Miller, which observes that “the norm in\\nfederal court is that counsel will not be allowed to attend unless good cause is presented to justify that.” 8B Charles\\nAlan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2236 at 496 (3d ed. 2010). That same passage\\nalso explains that concerns about overreaching or abusive behavior during an IME “can be minimized in other ways,\\nparticularly by excluding from evidence any statements made by the party to the doctor relating to nonmedical\\nmatters.” Id.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 11\\n\\n\\n C. Prior Warning\\n\\n The magistrate judge recognized that plaintiff was not expressly warned that failure to\\ncomply with the Rule 35 Order could lead to dismissal, although WCL’s motion provided some\\nnotice that dismissal was a possibility. See Reyes, 307 F.3d at 458. When “a plaintiff has not\\nbeen given notice that dismissal is contemplated, a district court should impose a penalty short of\\ndismissal unless the derelict party has engaged in bad faith or contumacious conduct.” Harmon,\\n110 F.3d at 367 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Harris v. Callwood, 844 F.2d 1254,\\n1256 (6th Cir. 1988)). As is discussed at length above, the record supports the conclusion that\\nplaintiff and his attorney deliberately disobeyed the Rule 35 Order through the calculated\\nrefusals to answer questions during the IME. As such, the lack of a prior warning would not\\nprevent dismissal of the complaint as a first sanction.\\n\\n D. Alternative Sanctions\\n\\n The fourth factor asks whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before\\ndismissal was ordered. They were. The magistrate judge explained that he “considered lesser\\nsanctions, such as imposing costs for the IME, striking Plaintiff’s own expert witnesses, and/or\\nstriking Plaintiff’s claim for permanent disability” but found that “[n]one of these sanctions\\nwould reflect the seriousness of the conduct in this case.” This consideration also supports the\\ndecision to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v).\\n\\n AFFIRMED.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 12\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4396973/\", \"author_raw\": \"RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge\"}, {\"author\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge, concurring. I join Judge Guy’s well-reasoned opinion in full.\\nI write separately to emphasize the propriety of holding parties accountable for their lawyers’\\nactions.\\n\\n Our system of representative litigation makes the parties principals, the lawyers agents.\\nSee Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 reporter’s note c (Am. Law Inst. 2006); Restatement\\n(Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 26 cmt. b (Am. Law Inst. 2000); William A. Gregory,\\nThe Law of Agency and Partnership § 21 (3d ed. 2001). Under tried and true agency principles,\\nparties become bound by the actions of lawyers taken with actual or apparent authority.\\nRestatement (Third) of Agency §§ 2.01–.03; Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers\\n§§ 26–27. That understanding has deep roots, centuries-deep roots, in the common law. The\\nthirteenth-century jurist Henry de Bracton wrote that “the attorney represents the person of his\\nlord in almost all matters.” 4 Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England 85 (George E.\\nWoodbine ed., Samuel E. Thorne trans., 1977). By Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ time, the\\nidea had become cliché, the well-worn adage being that the “act of the attorney is the act of his\\nclient.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Agency, 5 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 7–8 (1891) (quotation omitted).\\n\\n This representative ideal pervades every aspect of our modern legal system. We stylize\\nour cases as contests of “Plaintiff v. Defendant” even though the combatants who appear behind\\nthe lectern are lawyers, not parties. We write that “plaintiff argues so-and-so,” full well knowing\\nthat the client often hasn’t the foggiest about the obscure arguments his lawyer just submitted on\\nhis behalf. The concept even suffuses our vocabulary. The word attorney means one who is\\nattorned—in other words, a person appointed to act for another. 1 Oxford English Dictionary\\n772 (2d ed. 1989). Trying to pry apart a lawyer’s representational actions from those of his\\nclient is like trying to separate Mark Twain from Samuel Clemens.\\n\\n One implication of this foundational principle is that parties must be held accountable for\\ntheir attorneys’ misconduct. That’s why there is “certainly no merit to the contention that\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 13\\n\\n\\ndismissal of petitioner’s claim because of his counsel’s unexcused conduct imposes an unjust\\npenalty on the client. Petitioner voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the action,\\nand he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent.”\\nLink v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633–34 (1962). “Any other notion,” the Court added,\\n“would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation, in which each party is\\ndeemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have notice of all facts, notice\\nof which can be charged upon the attorney.” Id. at 634 (quotation omitted). In the past fifty\\nyears, the Court has hammered the point over and over. See Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266,\\n280–81 (2012); Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 396–37 (1993);\\nIrwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 92–93 (1990); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S.\\n241, 249–50 (1985).\\n\\n Even so, our circuit remains queasy about Link’s iron-clad logic in sanction cases like\\nthis one. Reasoning that dismissal with prejudice unfairly punishes a plaintiff for his lawyer’s\\nmisdeeds, we have “expressed an extreme reluctance to uphold the dismissal of a case merely to\\ndiscipline a party’s attorney.” Mulbah v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 261 F.3d 586, 590 (6th Cir.\\n2001); see also Patterson v. Grand Blanc Twp., 760 F.2d 686, 688 (6th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).\\nSo it is that “[d]ismissal is usually inappropriate where the neglect is solely the fault of the\\nattorney.” Carpenter v. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 704 (6th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted).\\n\\n This sentiment is unfair to the defendant, is inconsistent with other areas of the law, and\\nmay do more harm than good for the party it tries to help: the plaintiff. Why should a defendant\\nbe made to endure abuses by a plaintiff’s lawyer just because the plaintiff was unaware? That is\\nnot the way we usually think about it. See Link, 370 U.S. at 634 n.10. Our anxiety about\\nharming blameless plaintiffs also breaks sharply from our usual practices. When a plaintiff loses\\nhis case because his lawyer filed the complaint outside the statute of limitations, we rarely pause\\nto ask whether the client was responsible for the delay. See, e.g., Rocheleau v. Elder Living\\nConstr., LLC, 814 F.3d 398, 400–01 (6th Cir. 2016). In that situation, we treat the lawyer’s\\nactions as those of his client, no matter how steep the cost.\\n\\n The law already marks a deeply grooved path for addressing the grievances of clients\\nbilked out of good claims by bad lawyers. It’s called a malpractice lawsuit. See Link, 370 U.S.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 14\\n\\n\\nat 634 n.10; Inman v. Am. Home Furniture Placement, Inc., 120 F.3d 117, 119 (8th Cir. 1997).\\nA dismissal with prejudice predicated on lawyer misconduct would provide powerful\\nammunition for a client in a malpractice proceeding. See Restatement (Third) of the Law\\nGoverning Lawyers § 53 cmt. b. By departing from our traditional rules of agency to protect\\nplaintiffs, we may do just the opposite. If we make party misconduct a near precondition in\\nevery dismissal, we unduly complicate the inevitable malpractice action by giving the lawyer a\\nready defense: My client behaved just as badly as I did. See Carpenter, 723 F.3d at 704.\\n\\n Left to my own devices, I would take a different tack. While a party’s conduct may enter\\nthe equation in determining whether to dismiss the case with prejudice as a sanction, we should\\nnot make it a near precondition for doing so.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4396973/\", \"author_raw\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"GUY"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SUTTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"GUY"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619720/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Peter J. MAGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD., Defendant-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-15\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0090p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n PETER J. MAGER, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\n │\n > No. 18-1421\n v. │\n │\n │\n WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD., │\n Defendant-Appellee. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.\n No. 2:16-cv-00145—Gordon J. Quist, District Judge.\n\n Argued: April 30, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 15, 2019\n\n Before: GUY, SUTTON, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Michael B. Gunzburg, RIDGE & DOWNES, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant. Mary\nC. O’Donnell, GALLAGHER SHARP LLP, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:\nMichael B. Gunzburg, James T. Foley, RIDGE & DOWNES, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant.\nMary C. O’Donnell, GALLAGHER SHARP LLP, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.\n\n GUY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SUTTON and NALBANDIAN, JJ.,\njoined. SUTTON, J. (pp. 12–14), delivered a separate concurring opinion.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. Peter Mager sought to recover damages under the\nFederal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq., for injuries he allegedly\n\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 2\n\n\nsustained while employed by Wisconsin Central Ltd. (WCL) as a trackman at a railway yard near\nMarquette, Michigan. Mager appeals the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice, which was\nordered as a sanction primarily for his and his attorney’s conduct at a court-ordered independent\nmedical examination. Reviewing the dismissal for abuse of discretion, we affirm.\n\n I.\n\n Mager alleged that he was seriously and permanently injured on July 29, 2013, when he\nslipped on hydraulic oil that had leaked onto the rear deck of a truck where he was working.\nMager filed suit in June 2016, was deposed in June 2017, and was sent notice that defendant had\nscheduled an independent medical examination (IME) in early August 2017. Plaintiff’s counsel,\nJames T. Foley, objected to the IME because the examiner’s office was in Appleton,\nWisconsin—a substantial drive from where Mager lived in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.\nThat prompted WCL, through its counsel Mary O’Donnell, to move both for an order compelling\nthe IME pursuant to Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to delay the third-\nparty mediation scheduled for late August 2017. At a hearing on the motion on September 27,\ncounsel reached an agreement at the magistrate judge’s urging. Namely, it was agreed that\nMager would submit to the IME, that WCL would pay his mileage, and that a settlement\nconference would be scheduled with the court in lieu of mediation. A new Case Management\nOrder was promptly entered on September 28, 2017.\n\n Once the IME was rescheduled, Mager was asked to complete a five-page written\nquestionnaire prior to the appointment. That questionnaire—which is in the record—inquired\ninto Mager’s complaints, medical history, medications, prior evaluations, and how and where his\ninjury occurred. When Foley objected to the questionnaire as unnecessary in light of plaintiff’s\nrecent deposition, O’Donnell brought the matter before the magistrate judge by way of a\nconference call. O’Donnell asked that Mager be required to either complete the questionnaire or\nbe interviewed by a doctor’s assistant. The magistrate judge “determined that background\ninformation was necessary for the IME.” Accordingly, a Rule 35 Order was entered the next day\nexpressly directing Mager to “appear at the IME on October 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. C.S.T., for\nan interview by a physician assistant and for Dr. Revord to conduct an IME. The interview and\nexam shall not exceed three (3) hours.” (Emphasis added.) No other conditions were specified.\n\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 3\n\n\n Mager appeared for the IME as directed and was joined there by his attorney James\nFoley, who not only remained present throughout the appointment but also surreptitiously made\nan audio recording of the visit. Later, Foley conceded that he did so without prior notice to\ndefense counsel; stated that he regularly attended IMEs with other clients; and explained that he\nhad determined ahead of time that one-party-consent recording is legal in Wisconsin. As a result\nof that recording, however, there can be no dispute that Mager himself repeatedly declined to\nanswer relevant questions about his condition, his medications, and how the injury occurred.\n\n An unofficial transcript of the recording1 reflects that although Mager provided some\nidentifying information to the receptionist upon arrival, he and Foley did not allow his driver’s\nlicense to be copied. An assistant then escorted Mager and Foley to an exam room, where she\nattempted to conduct an interview. Mager was asked what problems or concerns he wanted to\nhave addressed—one of the questions highlighted on the questionnaire—but Mager would not do\nso and said he had already answered questions about his problems during his deposition. Foley\ninterjected that Mager was there to be evaluated at defendant’s request and not to have any\nproblems addressed. The assistant explained that the doctor still wanted some of the questions\nanswered, but Mager replied that he was sure that they had all of his medical records. Finally,\nMager declined to list the medications he was taking, again referring the assistant to the\ndeposition transcript that he had brought with him. That concluded the assistant’s attempt to\ninterview Mager.\n\n Forewarned, Dr. Revord introduced himself to Mager and Foley; confirmed that Mager\ndid not want to answer any questions; indicated that he had reviewed Mager’s records; and took\nthe copy of Mager’s deposition when it was offered. During that exchange, Foley also stated that\nMager was “not trying to be an obstructionist” but did not want to “rehash” his deposition\ntestimony. Dr. Revord explained that he was there to see Mager, listen to his story, and write a\nreport evaluating his condition and what had caused it. Dr. Revord tried to ask about how the\ninjury occurred and about Mager’s physical problems, but Mager referred him to the deposition\n\n 1In fairly contentious briefing, WCL’s counsel impugns the transcript because it was made by an\nunidentified individual in Foley’s office. Despite having received a copy of the recording, however, WCL does not\nsuggest that the transcript is inaccurate in any way. Indeed, WCL relies on that very transcript as proof of deliberate\nviolation of the Rule 35 Order.\n\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 4\n\n\nfor those answers. The full exchange was as follows:\n\n [Dr. Revord]: . . . Now I was a little confused. You’re talking in the summons of\n oil and slipping in the back of a truck but on your, when you filled out the injury\n report that day, you were saying you were walking to the front door of the truck\n and your legs gave way.\n [Peter Mager]: Everything is in the deposition there.\n DR: Got it.\n PM: We went over all the, all the stuff.\n DR: Got it.\n PM: I’m not trying to give you a hard time.\n DR: I understand.\n PM: All the information should be there.\n DR: I think you are smart to listen to your attorney. If your attorney, if my\n attorney told me to dye my hair red, I’d dye my hair red. You know, so if your\n attorney has told you not to …\n [FOLEY]: You’re assuming I told him that.\n DR: to answer specific questions.\n JTF: That might be his own, his own line of thinking.\n DR: He had told me, we had been told, eh, that . . . Well is it, let me ask you, is it\n your idea not to fill out the form?\n JTF: That’s not relevant doc.\n PM: I’m complying with the Order. They told me I had to come down here and\n be examined by you.\n DR: Very good. Ok I will go with the history in the chart and what you said\n when you filled out the initial report.\n (inaudible)\n Ok great. Do you want to tell me what problems you are having or would you\n rather I just look at your deposition?\n PM: It’s all in the deposition.\n\nMager then complied as Dr. Revord conducted a physical examination. Lastly, Dr. Revord asked\nMager what medications he was currently taking, but Mager declined to answer and responded\nthat it was all in his deposition and medical records. That concluded the IME.\n\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 5\n\n\n Dr. Revord prepared a six-page report the same day, which noted Mager’s refusals to\nanswer questions, relied on a review of Mager’s medical and other records, and concluded—in\nshort—that Mager presented with a “volitional” tremor, had no significant pathology in his\nlumbar region, required no further treatment, and was asserting contradictory claims about how\nthe injury occurred. The report added that Mager’s deposition “did not contain the answers to\nthe questions [Dr. Revord] was asking him.” The deposition itself is not part of the district court\nrecord.2\n\n Ten days later, WCL moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) of\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Mager had violated the “spirit and letter” of the\nRule 35 Order. WCL also argued that it had been denied the opportunity to object to Foley’s\npresence or to have the magistrate judge consider whether to allow Foley’s presence as a\ncondition of the IME. Plaintiff’s response to the motion was filed one day late—at 1:30 a.m. on\nNovember 15—and revealed the audio recording. Defendant replied on November 21.\n\n A hearing was held on November 28, 2017, which also was the date set for the agreed\nsettlement conference. That conference was cancelled, however, because Foley had failed to\nsend a “confidential settlement letter” to the magistrate judge as directed by the Case\nManagement Order. Although the magistrate judge indicated his intention to impose monetary\nsanctions on counsel for that failure, an order to that effect was not entered prior to the dismissal.\n\n Next, the magistrate judge asked Foley about his and his client’s conduct at the IME.\nFoley insisted that Mager had complied by appearing to be interviewed; stated that he was\npresent at Mager’s request; and explained that both his presence and the recording were in\nresponse to concerns that the IME might be used as a “de facto deposition.” O’Donnell\ncountered that the circumstances showed intentional defiance of the court’s order. On December\n28, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation setting forth the facts,\naddressing the relevant factors, and concluding that dismissal was warranted because of the\n“flagrant and repeated misconduct exhibited by Plaintiff and his attorney.” Over plaintiff’s\nobjections, the district court adopted the R&R and dismissed the complaint with prejudice on\n\n 2Dr. Revord’s report also commented that although Mager had refused to provide identification, “claimant\nappears to be the same individual . . . [in] photographs provided to me.” Nothing in the record suggests otherwise.\n\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 6\n\n\nMarch 9, 2018. Plaintiff appealed, and, notably, he is no longer represented by Foley.\n\n II.\n\n The decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a discovery obligation or\nother court order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey\nClub, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976) (per curiam); see also Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176\nF.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999); Harmon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 110 F.3d 364, 366 (6th Cir. 1997).\n\n Rule 37(b) specifically authorizes the imposition of sanctions for failure to comply with a\nRule 35 Order, or for failing to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order under Rule 16(f)(1)(C)\nof the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), “a district court may sanction\nparties who fail to comply with its orders in a variety of ways, including dismissal of the\nlawsuit.” Bass v. Jostens, Inc., 71 F.3d 237, 241 (6th Cir. 1995). Four factors are to be\nconsidered in determining whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with\na discovery obligation or other court order:\n\n (1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether\n the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party’s conduct; (3) whether the\n dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and\n (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal\n was ordered.\n\nUnited States v. Reyes, 307 F.3d 451, 458 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363).\n“Although no one factor is dispositive, dismissal is proper if the record demonstrates delay or\ncontumacious conduct.” Id.; see also Harmon, 110 F.3d at 366-67. “Contumacious conduct\nrefers to behavior that is perverse in resisting authority and stubbornly disobedient.” Carpenter\nv. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 705 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks\nomitted).3\n\n\n\n\n 3When Rule 37(b) applies, there is no need to rely on the court’s inherent powers or on Rule 41(b)’s\nauthorization to dismiss for failure “to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P.\n41(b); see also Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S.\n197, 207 (1958).\n\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 7\n\n\n A. Willfulness, Bad Faith, or Fault\n\n To show that a party’s failure to comply was motivated by bad faith, willfulness, or fault,\nthe conduct “must display either an intent to thwart judicial proceedings or a reckless disregard\nfor the effect of [his] conduct on those proceedings.” Carpenter, 723 F.3d at 705 (alteration in\noriginal) (quoting Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005)). This court has\nexpressed reluctance to uphold a dismissal “merely to discipline an errant attorney” to the\ndetriment of an innocent client. Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363 (citation omitted); see also Mulbah v.\nDetroit Bd. of Educ., 261 F.3d 586, 590 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, notwithstanding the Supreme\nCourt’s declaration that dismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint based on his attorney’s unexcused\nconduct would not impose an undue penalty on the client in Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.\n626, 633-34 (1962), this court has instructed that “[d]ismissal is usually inappropriate where the\nneglect is solely the fault of the attorney,” Carpenter, 723 F.3d at 704 (alteration in original and\ncitation omitted).\n\n Here, although there were some failures that were attributable solely to counsel, the\nmagistrate judge expressly found that “Plaintiff and his attorney acted in bad faith and willfully\nviolated the [Rule 35] discovery order” that “required Plaintiff to submit to an interview.”\nBecause that finding is supported by the record, it was not an abuse of discretion to find this\nfactor weighs in favor of dismissal.\n\n Late or Missing Filings. The magistrate judge identified two instances of failure to\ncomply with a scheduling or pretrial order: (1) the tardy filing of the response to the motion to\ndismiss; and (2) the failure to submit the confidential settlement letter to the magistrate judge.\nSubmission of a settlement letter was expressly required by court order. The failure to submit\nthe letter caused the cancellation of the settlement conference on the day it was scheduled to\noccur, and the magistrate judge indicated his intention to impose sanctions at the time.\n\n Violation of Rule 35 Order. A court “may order a party whose mental or physical\ncondition . . . is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably\nlicensed or certified examiner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1). The order is to be “made only on a\nmotion for good cause,” and “must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the\n\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 8\n\n\nexamination, as well as the person or persons who will perform it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2)(A),\n(B). There is no dispute that Mager’s physical condition was in controversy. Both the extent\nand cause of his injuries were contested and central to his claim, and counsel agreed that he\nwould submit to the examination on the condition that defendant pay his mileage. Plaintiff relies\non email correspondence to suggest that it was defense counsel who asked that the questionnaire\nbe completed. Be that as it may, what matters is that, as the magistrate judge found, the order\nrequiring Mager to submit to an interview “was the result of a telephone conference in which\nPlaintiff’s counsel discussed his concerns with allowing an interview.” In other words,\nnotwithstanding Foley’s objections and concerns, Mager was expressly ordered to submit to an\ninterview as part of the IME.\n\n Mager cannot credibly claim either that he was unaware of the obligation or that he\ncomplied with it by sitting for the interview but declining to answer questions regarding his\ncondition, his current medications, or how his injury occurred. Foley represented that he and\nMager had discussed their concerns about the interview, and Foley denied that he told Mager\nwhat to do. The fact is, Mager arrived for the IME with a copy of his deposition transcript and\nhis attorney in tow, and then proceeded to repeatedly deflect questions by stating that the\nanswers could be found in his deposition or prior medical records. Now that he is no longer\nrepresented by Foley, plaintiff asserts that it “was unreasonable for the court to conclude that he\ndid anything other than follow the instructions of his attorney when he attended the IME.” But\nMager cannot escape the consequences of his own actions by laying blame on the advice of\ncounsel. The actions that Mager took with the support of Foley were deliberate and calculated to\ncircumvent the order requiring him to submit to an interview as part of the IME.\n\n Counsel’s Presence and Secret Recording. Although not a violation of the Rule 35\nOrder itself, the magistrate judge found that Foley’s unexpected attendance at and surreptitious\nrecording of the IME “show[ed] bad faith and a lack of respect for the integrity of the legal\nprofession.” Plaintiff’s new counsel concedes that Foley “should have discussed his desire to\nattend and record the IME with opposing counsel and, if necessary, raised the issue with the\ncourt prior to the IME.” Admitting that Foley’s conduct should not be condoned, plaintiff argues\nthat Mager had no way of knowing that it was improper. But Mager’s hands are not so clean.\n\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 9\n\n\n Foley and Mager were concerned that the examiner was a defense-side expert who may\ntry to elicit information adverse to their case—i.e., the “de facto” deposition argument—and\n“discussed the advantages of audio-taping the entire IME event.” (Pl’s Br., p. 17.) There is no\nreason to doubt that Mager knew Foley was secretly recording the visit on a hidden cell phone,\nwhich was deceitful even if not actually illegal in Wisconsin. That recording, in turn, shows that\nFoley’s presence provided support to Mager and furthered the concerted and deliberate effort to\nthwart the court-ordered interview and avoid questions they did not want to have to answer.\nPlaintiff’s new counsel acknowledges that “[e]ven in state courts where attorneys often attend\nand videotape an IME, it is most often done with notice to opposing counsel.” (Reply Br., p. 5.)\nIt should also go without saying, that, even then, the recording would be done in the open.\n\n Failure to Request Conditions. These actions were found to be particularly egregious\nbecause plaintiff’s counsel knew or should have known that “federal courts generally do not\nallow a third-party to be present during an IME or to have an IME recorded unless the party has\nestablished a special need or good cause.” Plaintiff does not dispute that this is the general rule,\nalthough this court has not had occasion to address the parameters of the trial court’s discretion\nto grant or deny such a request. See, e.g., Elder v. Harrison Twp., No. 10-cv-13144, 2014 WL\n6668696, at *3-5 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 24, 2014) (finding inherently adversarial nature was not\nsufficient reason); Lahar v. Oakland Cty., No. 05-72920, 2006 WL 2269340, at *7-8 (E.D. Mich.\nAug. 8, 2006) (finding interest in assuring accuracy was insufficient reason); but see Gohl v.\nLivonia Pub. Schs., No. 12-cv-15199, 2015 WL 1469749, at *2-5 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2015)\n(allowing parental presence for exam of children with cognitive deficiencies but finding no good\ncause for it to be recorded).\n\n Nor is there reason to think the state courts would condone what happened here. See,\ne.g., Metro. Prop. & Cas. v. Overstreet, 103 S.W.3d 31, 39 (Ky. 2003) (Kentucky’s similar rule\nallows third persons to attend where there is good cause, although an attorney’s presence is\n“most likely to be problematic because of the potential to unfairly disrupt the examination”).\nIndeed, even though Michigan law provides a statutory right to have counsel present during an\n\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 10\n\n\nIME, that condition would be included in the order. See Mich. Ct. R. 2.311 (order “may provide\nthat the attorney for the person to be examined may be present at the examination”).4\n\n It was not an abuse of discretion to find that the concerted actions of plaintiff and his\nattorney displayed an intent to thwart the judicial proceedings, or at least a reckless disregard for\nthe effect of that conduct on the proceedings. Nor is this a case in which the dismissal was\nmerely to discipline an attorney “to the detriment of an innocent client.” Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363.\nThis factor weighs in favor of dismissal.\n\n B. Prejudice to the Adversary\n\n As noted earlier, plaintiff conceded that prejudice resulted from the cancellation of the\nsettlement conference on the day it was scheduled to occur. The magistrate judge also found that\nWCL was prejudiced because Mager and Foley failed to comply with the order requiring him to\nsubmit to an interview as part of the IME. Plaintiff argues that there was no prejudice because\nthe refusals did not prevent Dr. Revord from preparing his report and providing an opinion based\non a physical examination and review of the prior medical records. In fact, the report did not\nidentify the conditions that Mager claimed were disabling, describe the manner of the injury, or\nlist the medications he was taking at the time. Nor did Dr. Revord believe the deposition\nanswered the questions he was asking. Plaintiff counters that Dr. Revord did not insist on\nanswers, but Dr. Revord was not wrong in believing that it was not his place to do so. The\nmagistrate judge found that WCL was prevented “from receiving an expert report with all the\nmedical information that the physician was seeking.” Although the report was favorable to the\ndefense, it was arguably incomplete and potentially subject to impeachment. Plaintiff has not\nshown it was clear error to conclude that the deliberate circumvention of the Rule 35 Order\nprejudiced the ability of the defense to rely on the IME report.\n\n\n\n\n 4Plaintiff’s new counsel wisely abandoned reliance on Wright & Miller, which observes that “the norm in\nfederal court is that counsel will not be allowed to attend unless good cause is presented to justify that.” 8B Charles\nAlan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2236 at 496 (3d ed. 2010). That same passage\nalso explains that concerns about overreaching or abusive behavior during an IME “can be minimized in other ways,\nparticularly by excluding from evidence any statements made by the party to the doctor relating to nonmedical\nmatters.” Id.\n\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 11\n\n\n C. Prior Warning\n\n The magistrate judge recognized that plaintiff was not expressly warned that failure to\ncomply with the Rule 35 Order could lead to dismissal, although WCL’s motion provided some\nnotice that dismissal was a possibility. See Reyes, 307 F.3d at 458. When “a plaintiff has not\nbeen given notice that dismissal is contemplated, a district court should impose a penalty short of\ndismissal unless the derelict party has engaged in bad faith or contumacious conduct.” Harmon,\n110 F.3d at 367 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Harris v. Callwood, 844 F.2d 1254,\n1256 (6th Cir. 1988)). As is discussed at length above, the record supports the conclusion that\nplaintiff and his attorney deliberately disobeyed the Rule 35 Order through the calculated\nrefusals to answer questions during the IME. As such, the lack of a prior warning would not\nprevent dismissal of the complaint as a first sanction.\n\n D. Alternative Sanctions\n\n The fourth factor asks whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before\ndismissal was ordered. They were. The magistrate judge explained that he “considered lesser\nsanctions, such as imposing costs for the IME, striking Plaintiff’s own expert witnesses, and/or\nstriking Plaintiff’s claim for permanent disability” but found that “[n]one of these sanctions\nwould reflect the seriousness of the conduct in this case.” This consideration also supports the\ndecision to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v).\n\n AFFIRMED.\n\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 12\n\n\n _________________\n\n CONCURRENCE\n _________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Peter J. MAGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD., Defendant-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-15\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0090p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n PETER J. MAGER, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-1421\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD., │\\n Defendant-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.\\n No. 2:16-cv-00145—Gordon J. Quist, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: April 30, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 15, 2019\\n\\n Before: GUY, SUTTON, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Michael B. Gunzburg, RIDGE & DOWNES, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant. Mary\\nC. O’Donnell, GALLAGHER SHARP LLP, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:\\nMichael B. Gunzburg, James T. Foley, RIDGE & DOWNES, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant.\\nMary C. O’Donnell, GALLAGHER SHARP LLP, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n\\n GUY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SUTTON and NALBANDIAN, JJ.,\\njoined. SUTTON, J. (pp. 12–14), delivered a separate concurring opinion.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. Peter Mager sought to recover damages under the\\nFederal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq., for injuries he allegedly\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 2\\n\\n\\nsustained while employed by Wisconsin Central Ltd. (WCL) as a trackman at a railway yard near\\nMarquette, Michigan. Mager appeals the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice, which was\\nordered as a sanction primarily for his and his attorney’s conduct at a court-ordered independent\\nmedical examination. Reviewing the dismissal for abuse of discretion, we affirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Mager alleged that he was seriously and permanently injured on July 29, 2013, when he\\nslipped on hydraulic oil that had leaked onto the rear deck of a truck where he was working.\\nMager filed suit in June 2016, was deposed in June 2017, and was sent notice that defendant had\\nscheduled an independent medical examination (IME) in early August 2017. Plaintiff’s counsel,\\nJames T. Foley, objected to the IME because the examiner’s office was in Appleton,\\nWisconsin—a substantial drive from where Mager lived in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.\\nThat prompted WCL, through its counsel Mary O’Donnell, to move both for an order compelling\\nthe IME pursuant to Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to delay the third-\\nparty mediation scheduled for late August 2017. At a hearing on the motion on September 27,\\ncounsel reached an agreement at the magistrate judge’s urging. Namely, it was agreed that\\nMager would submit to the IME, that WCL would pay his mileage, and that a settlement\\nconference would be scheduled with the court in lieu of mediation. A new Case Management\\nOrder was promptly entered on September 28, 2017.\\n\\n Once the IME was rescheduled, Mager was asked to complete a five-page written\\nquestionnaire prior to the appointment. That questionnaire—which is in the record—inquired\\ninto Mager’s complaints, medical history, medications, prior evaluations, and how and where his\\ninjury occurred. When Foley objected to the questionnaire as unnecessary in light of plaintiff’s\\nrecent deposition, O’Donnell brought the matter before the magistrate judge by way of a\\nconference call. O’Donnell asked that Mager be required to either complete the questionnaire or\\nbe interviewed by a doctor’s assistant. The magistrate judge “determined that background\\ninformation was necessary for the IME.” Accordingly, a Rule 35 Order was entered the next day\\nexpressly directing Mager to “appear at the IME on October 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. C.S.T., for\\nan interview by a physician assistant and for Dr. Revord to conduct an IME. The interview and\\nexam shall not exceed three (3) hours.” (Emphasis added.) No other conditions were specified.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 3\\n\\n\\n Mager appeared for the IME as directed and was joined there by his attorney James\\nFoley, who not only remained present throughout the appointment but also surreptitiously made\\nan audio recording of the visit. Later, Foley conceded that he did so without prior notice to\\ndefense counsel; stated that he regularly attended IMEs with other clients; and explained that he\\nhad determined ahead of time that one-party-consent recording is legal in Wisconsin. As a result\\nof that recording, however, there can be no dispute that Mager himself repeatedly declined to\\nanswer relevant questions about his condition, his medications, and how the injury occurred.\\n\\n An unofficial transcript of the recording1 reflects that although Mager provided some\\nidentifying information to the receptionist upon arrival, he and Foley did not allow his driver’s\\nlicense to be copied. An assistant then escorted Mager and Foley to an exam room, where she\\nattempted to conduct an interview. Mager was asked what problems or concerns he wanted to\\nhave addressed—one of the questions highlighted on the questionnaire—but Mager would not do\\nso and said he had already answered questions about his problems during his deposition. Foley\\ninterjected that Mager was there to be evaluated at defendant’s request and not to have any\\nproblems addressed. The assistant explained that the doctor still wanted some of the questions\\nanswered, but Mager replied that he was sure that they had all of his medical records. Finally,\\nMager declined to list the medications he was taking, again referring the assistant to the\\ndeposition transcript that he had brought with him. That concluded the assistant’s attempt to\\ninterview Mager.\\n\\n Forewarned, Dr. Revord introduced himself to Mager and Foley; confirmed that Mager\\ndid not want to answer any questions; indicated that he had reviewed Mager’s records; and took\\nthe copy of Mager’s deposition when it was offered. During that exchange, Foley also stated that\\nMager was “not trying to be an obstructionist” but did not want to “rehash” his deposition\\ntestimony. Dr. Revord explained that he was there to see Mager, listen to his story, and write a\\nreport evaluating his condition and what had caused it. Dr. Revord tried to ask about how the\\ninjury occurred and about Mager’s physical problems, but Mager referred him to the deposition\\n\\n 1In fairly contentious briefing, WCL’s counsel impugns the transcript because it was made by an\\nunidentified individual in Foley’s office. Despite having received a copy of the recording, however, WCL does not\\nsuggest that the transcript is inaccurate in any way. Indeed, WCL relies on that very transcript as proof of deliberate\\nviolation of the Rule 35 Order.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 4\\n\\n\\nfor those answers. The full exchange was as follows:\\n\\n [Dr. Revord]: . . . Now I was a little confused. You’re talking in the summons of\\n oil and slipping in the back of a truck but on your, when you filled out the injury\\n report that day, you were saying you were walking to the front door of the truck\\n and your legs gave way.\\n [Peter Mager]: Everything is in the deposition there.\\n DR: Got it.\\n PM: We went over all the, all the stuff.\\n DR: Got it.\\n PM: I’m not trying to give you a hard time.\\n DR: I understand.\\n PM: All the information should be there.\\n DR: I think you are smart to listen to your attorney. If your attorney, if my\\n attorney told me to dye my hair red, I’d dye my hair red. You know, so if your\\n attorney has told you not to …\\n [FOLEY]: You’re assuming I told him that.\\n DR: to answer specific questions.\\n JTF: That might be his own, his own line of thinking.\\n DR: He had told me, we had been told, eh, that . . . Well is it, let me ask you, is it\\n your idea not to fill out the form?\\n JTF: That’s not relevant doc.\\n PM: I’m complying with the Order. They told me I had to come down here and\\n be examined by you.\\n DR: Very good. Ok I will go with the history in the chart and what you said\\n when you filled out the initial report.\\n (inaudible)\\n Ok great. Do you want to tell me what problems you are having or would you\\n rather I just look at your deposition?\\n PM: It’s all in the deposition.\\n\\nMager then complied as Dr. Revord conducted a physical examination. Lastly, Dr. Revord asked\\nMager what medications he was currently taking, but Mager declined to answer and responded\\nthat it was all in his deposition and medical records. That concluded the IME.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 5\\n\\n\\n Dr. Revord prepared a six-page report the same day, which noted Mager’s refusals to\\nanswer questions, relied on a review of Mager’s medical and other records, and concluded—in\\nshort—that Mager presented with a “volitional” tremor, had no significant pathology in his\\nlumbar region, required no further treatment, and was asserting contradictory claims about how\\nthe injury occurred. The report added that Mager’s deposition “did not contain the answers to\\nthe questions [Dr. Revord] was asking him.” The deposition itself is not part of the district court\\nrecord.2\\n\\n Ten days later, WCL moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) of\\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Mager had violated the “spirit and letter” of the\\nRule 35 Order. WCL also argued that it had been denied the opportunity to object to Foley’s\\npresence or to have the magistrate judge consider whether to allow Foley’s presence as a\\ncondition of the IME. Plaintiff’s response to the motion was filed one day late—at 1:30 a.m. on\\nNovember 15—and revealed the audio recording. Defendant replied on November 21.\\n\\n A hearing was held on November 28, 2017, which also was the date set for the agreed\\nsettlement conference. That conference was cancelled, however, because Foley had failed to\\nsend a “confidential settlement letter” to the magistrate judge as directed by the Case\\nManagement Order. Although the magistrate judge indicated his intention to impose monetary\\nsanctions on counsel for that failure, an order to that effect was not entered prior to the dismissal.\\n\\n Next, the magistrate judge asked Foley about his and his client’s conduct at the IME.\\nFoley insisted that Mager had complied by appearing to be interviewed; stated that he was\\npresent at Mager’s request; and explained that both his presence and the recording were in\\nresponse to concerns that the IME might be used as a “de facto deposition.” O’Donnell\\ncountered that the circumstances showed intentional defiance of the court’s order. On December\\n28, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation setting forth the facts,\\naddressing the relevant factors, and concluding that dismissal was warranted because of the\\n“flagrant and repeated misconduct exhibited by Plaintiff and his attorney.” Over plaintiff’s\\nobjections, the district court adopted the R&R and dismissed the complaint with prejudice on\\n\\n 2Dr. Revord’s report also commented that although Mager had refused to provide identification, “claimant\\nappears to be the same individual . . . [in] photographs provided to me.” Nothing in the record suggests otherwise.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 6\\n\\n\\nMarch 9, 2018. Plaintiff appealed, and, notably, he is no longer represented by Foley.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n The decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a discovery obligation or\\nother court order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey\\nClub, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976) (per curiam); see also Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176\\nF.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999); Harmon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 110 F.3d 364, 366 (6th Cir. 1997).\\n\\n Rule 37(b) specifically authorizes the imposition of sanctions for failure to comply with a\\nRule 35 Order, or for failing to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order under Rule 16(f)(1)(C)\\nof the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), “a district court may sanction\\nparties who fail to comply with its orders in a variety of ways, including dismissal of the\\nlawsuit.” Bass v. Jostens, Inc., 71 F.3d 237, 241 (6th Cir. 1995). Four factors are to be\\nconsidered in determining whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with\\na discovery obligation or other court order:\\n\\n (1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether\\n the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party’s conduct; (3) whether the\\n dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and\\n (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal\\n was ordered.\\n\\nUnited States v. Reyes, 307 F.3d 451, 458 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363).\\n“Although no one factor is dispositive, dismissal is proper if the record demonstrates delay or\\ncontumacious conduct.” Id.; see also Harmon, 110 F.3d at 366-67. “Contumacious conduct\\nrefers to behavior that is perverse in resisting authority and stubbornly disobedient.” Carpenter\\nv. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 705 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks\\nomitted).3\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3When Rule 37(b) applies, there is no need to rely on the court’s inherent powers or on Rule 41(b)’s\\nauthorization to dismiss for failure “to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n41(b); see also Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S.\\n197, 207 (1958).\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 7\\n\\n\\n A. Willfulness, Bad Faith, or Fault\\n\\n To show that a party’s failure to comply was motivated by bad faith, willfulness, or fault,\\nthe conduct “must display either an intent to thwart judicial proceedings or a reckless disregard\\nfor the effect of [his] conduct on those proceedings.” Carpenter, 723 F.3d at 705 (alteration in\\noriginal) (quoting Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005)). This court has\\nexpressed reluctance to uphold a dismissal “merely to discipline an errant attorney” to the\\ndetriment of an innocent client. Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363 (citation omitted); see also Mulbah v.\\nDetroit Bd. of Educ., 261 F.3d 586, 590 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, notwithstanding the Supreme\\nCourt’s declaration that dismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint based on his attorney’s unexcused\\nconduct would not impose an undue penalty on the client in Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.\\n626, 633-34 (1962), this court has instructed that “[d]ismissal is usually inappropriate where the\\nneglect is solely the fault of the attorney,” Carpenter, 723 F.3d at 704 (alteration in original and\\ncitation omitted).\\n\\n Here, although there were some failures that were attributable solely to counsel, the\\nmagistrate judge expressly found that “Plaintiff and his attorney acted in bad faith and willfully\\nviolated the [Rule 35] discovery order” that “required Plaintiff to submit to an interview.”\\nBecause that finding is supported by the record, it was not an abuse of discretion to find this\\nfactor weighs in favor of dismissal.\\n\\n Late or Missing Filings. The magistrate judge identified two instances of failure to\\ncomply with a scheduling or pretrial order: (1) the tardy filing of the response to the motion to\\ndismiss; and (2) the failure to submit the confidential settlement letter to the magistrate judge.\\nSubmission of a settlement letter was expressly required by court order. The failure to submit\\nthe letter caused the cancellation of the settlement conference on the day it was scheduled to\\noccur, and the magistrate judge indicated his intention to impose sanctions at the time.\\n\\n Violation of Rule 35 Order. A court “may order a party whose mental or physical\\ncondition . . . is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably\\nlicensed or certified examiner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1). The order is to be “made only on a\\nmotion for good cause,” and “must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 8\\n\\n\\nexamination, as well as the person or persons who will perform it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2)(A),\\n(B). There is no dispute that Mager’s physical condition was in controversy. Both the extent\\nand cause of his injuries were contested and central to his claim, and counsel agreed that he\\nwould submit to the examination on the condition that defendant pay his mileage. Plaintiff relies\\non email correspondence to suggest that it was defense counsel who asked that the questionnaire\\nbe completed. Be that as it may, what matters is that, as the magistrate judge found, the order\\nrequiring Mager to submit to an interview “was the result of a telephone conference in which\\nPlaintiff’s counsel discussed his concerns with allowing an interview.” In other words,\\nnotwithstanding Foley’s objections and concerns, Mager was expressly ordered to submit to an\\ninterview as part of the IME.\\n\\n Mager cannot credibly claim either that he was unaware of the obligation or that he\\ncomplied with it by sitting for the interview but declining to answer questions regarding his\\ncondition, his current medications, or how his injury occurred. Foley represented that he and\\nMager had discussed their concerns about the interview, and Foley denied that he told Mager\\nwhat to do. The fact is, Mager arrived for the IME with a copy of his deposition transcript and\\nhis attorney in tow, and then proceeded to repeatedly deflect questions by stating that the\\nanswers could be found in his deposition or prior medical records. Now that he is no longer\\nrepresented by Foley, plaintiff asserts that it “was unreasonable for the court to conclude that he\\ndid anything other than follow the instructions of his attorney when he attended the IME.” But\\nMager cannot escape the consequences of his own actions by laying blame on the advice of\\ncounsel. The actions that Mager took with the support of Foley were deliberate and calculated to\\ncircumvent the order requiring him to submit to an interview as part of the IME.\\n\\n Counsel’s Presence and Secret Recording. Although not a violation of the Rule 35\\nOrder itself, the magistrate judge found that Foley’s unexpected attendance at and surreptitious\\nrecording of the IME “show[ed] bad faith and a lack of respect for the integrity of the legal\\nprofession.” Plaintiff’s new counsel concedes that Foley “should have discussed his desire to\\nattend and record the IME with opposing counsel and, if necessary, raised the issue with the\\ncourt prior to the IME.” Admitting that Foley’s conduct should not be condoned, plaintiff argues\\nthat Mager had no way of knowing that it was improper. But Mager’s hands are not so clean.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 9\\n\\n\\n Foley and Mager were concerned that the examiner was a defense-side expert who may\\ntry to elicit information adverse to their case—i.e., the “de facto” deposition argument—and\\n“discussed the advantages of audio-taping the entire IME event.” (Pl’s Br., p. 17.) There is no\\nreason to doubt that Mager knew Foley was secretly recording the visit on a hidden cell phone,\\nwhich was deceitful even if not actually illegal in Wisconsin. That recording, in turn, shows that\\nFoley’s presence provided support to Mager and furthered the concerted and deliberate effort to\\nthwart the court-ordered interview and avoid questions they did not want to have to answer.\\nPlaintiff’s new counsel acknowledges that “[e]ven in state courts where attorneys often attend\\nand videotape an IME, it is most often done with notice to opposing counsel.” (Reply Br., p. 5.)\\nIt should also go without saying, that, even then, the recording would be done in the open.\\n\\n Failure to Request Conditions. These actions were found to be particularly egregious\\nbecause plaintiff’s counsel knew or should have known that “federal courts generally do not\\nallow a third-party to be present during an IME or to have an IME recorded unless the party has\\nestablished a special need or good cause.” Plaintiff does not dispute that this is the general rule,\\nalthough this court has not had occasion to address the parameters of the trial court’s discretion\\nto grant or deny such a request. See, e.g., Elder v. Harrison Twp., No. 10-cv-13144, 2014 WL\\n6668696, at *3-5 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 24, 2014) (finding inherently adversarial nature was not\\nsufficient reason); Lahar v. Oakland Cty., No. 05-72920, 2006 WL 2269340, at *7-8 (E.D. Mich.\\nAug. 8, 2006) (finding interest in assuring accuracy was insufficient reason); but see Gohl v.\\nLivonia Pub. Schs., No. 12-cv-15199, 2015 WL 1469749, at *2-5 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2015)\\n(allowing parental presence for exam of children with cognitive deficiencies but finding no good\\ncause for it to be recorded).\\n\\n Nor is there reason to think the state courts would condone what happened here. See,\\ne.g., Metro. Prop. & Cas. v. Overstreet, 103 S.W.3d 31, 39 (Ky. 2003) (Kentucky’s similar rule\\nallows third persons to attend where there is good cause, although an attorney’s presence is\\n“most likely to be problematic because of the potential to unfairly disrupt the examination”).\\nIndeed, even though Michigan law provides a statutory right to have counsel present during an\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 10\\n\\n\\nIME, that condition would be included in the order. See Mich. Ct. R. 2.311 (order “may provide\\nthat the attorney for the person to be examined may be present at the examination”).4\\n\\n It was not an abuse of discretion to find that the concerted actions of plaintiff and his\\nattorney displayed an intent to thwart the judicial proceedings, or at least a reckless disregard for\\nthe effect of that conduct on the proceedings. Nor is this a case in which the dismissal was\\nmerely to discipline an attorney “to the detriment of an innocent client.” Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363.\\nThis factor weighs in favor of dismissal.\\n\\n B. Prejudice to the Adversary\\n\\n As noted earlier, plaintiff conceded that prejudice resulted from the cancellation of the\\nsettlement conference on the day it was scheduled to occur. The magistrate judge also found that\\nWCL was prejudiced because Mager and Foley failed to comply with the order requiring him to\\nsubmit to an interview as part of the IME. Plaintiff argues that there was no prejudice because\\nthe refusals did not prevent Dr. Revord from preparing his report and providing an opinion based\\non a physical examination and review of the prior medical records. In fact, the report did not\\nidentify the conditions that Mager claimed were disabling, describe the manner of the injury, or\\nlist the medications he was taking at the time. Nor did Dr. Revord believe the deposition\\nanswered the questions he was asking. Plaintiff counters that Dr. Revord did not insist on\\nanswers, but Dr. Revord was not wrong in believing that it was not his place to do so. The\\nmagistrate judge found that WCL was prevented “from receiving an expert report with all the\\nmedical information that the physician was seeking.” Although the report was favorable to the\\ndefense, it was arguably incomplete and potentially subject to impeachment. Plaintiff has not\\nshown it was clear error to conclude that the deliberate circumvention of the Rule 35 Order\\nprejudiced the ability of the defense to rely on the IME report.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4Plaintiff’s new counsel wisely abandoned reliance on Wright & Miller, which observes that “the norm in\\nfederal court is that counsel will not be allowed to attend unless good cause is presented to justify that.” 8B Charles\\nAlan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2236 at 496 (3d ed. 2010). That same passage\\nalso explains that concerns about overreaching or abusive behavior during an IME “can be minimized in other ways,\\nparticularly by excluding from evidence any statements made by the party to the doctor relating to nonmedical\\nmatters.” Id.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 11\\n\\n\\n C. Prior Warning\\n\\n The magistrate judge recognized that plaintiff was not expressly warned that failure to\\ncomply with the Rule 35 Order could lead to dismissal, although WCL’s motion provided some\\nnotice that dismissal was a possibility. See Reyes, 307 F.3d at 458. When “a plaintiff has not\\nbeen given notice that dismissal is contemplated, a district court should impose a penalty short of\\ndismissal unless the derelict party has engaged in bad faith or contumacious conduct.” Harmon,\\n110 F.3d at 367 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Harris v. Callwood, 844 F.2d 1254,\\n1256 (6th Cir. 1988)). As is discussed at length above, the record supports the conclusion that\\nplaintiff and his attorney deliberately disobeyed the Rule 35 Order through the calculated\\nrefusals to answer questions during the IME. As such, the lack of a prior warning would not\\nprevent dismissal of the complaint as a first sanction.\\n\\n D. Alternative Sanctions\\n\\n The fourth factor asks whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before\\ndismissal was ordered. They were. The magistrate judge explained that he “considered lesser\\nsanctions, such as imposing costs for the IME, striking Plaintiff’s own expert witnesses, and/or\\nstriking Plaintiff’s claim for permanent disability” but found that “[n]one of these sanctions\\nwould reflect the seriousness of the conduct in this case.” This consideration also supports the\\ndecision to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v).\\n\\n AFFIRMED.\\n\\n No. 18-1421 Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. Page 12\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE\\n _________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2077,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4619721,"string":"4,619,721"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"M.L. JOHNSON FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David L. BERNHARDT, Secretary of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee, Premier Elkhorn Coal LLC, Intervenor-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. David Bernhardt"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-15"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-5520"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"McKeague, Griffin, Nalbandian\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"McKEAGUE\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0091p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n M.L. JOHNSON FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. > No. 18-5520\\n │\\n │\\n DAVID L. BERNHARDT, Secretary of the Interior, │\\n Defendant-Appellee, │\\n │\\n PREMIER ELKHORN COAL LLC, │\\n │\\n Intervenor-Appellee.\\n │\\n │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville.\\n No. 7:16-cv-00006—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: March 19, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 15, 2019\\n\\n Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Mary Varson Cromer, APPALACHIAN CITIZENS’ LAW CENTER, Whitesburg,\\nKentucky, for Appellant. Corinne Snow, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,\\nWashington, D.C., for Federal Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mary Varson Cromer, APPALACHIAN\\nCITIZENS’ LAW CENTER, Whitesburg, Kentucky, Joe F. Childers, JOE F. CHILDERS &\\nASSOCIATES, Lexington, Kentucky, Walton D. Morris, Jr., MORRIS LAW OFFICE, P.C.,\\nCharlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Eric Grant, J. David Gunter II, Dustin J. Maghamfar,\\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Federal Appellee.\\nJohn C. Martin, HOLLAND & HART LLP, Washington, D.C., Thomas C. Means, CROWELL\\n& MORING LLP, Washington, D.C., Charles J. Baird, BAIRD & BAIRD, PSC, Pikeville,\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nKentucky, for Intervenor Appellee. Samuel J. Short, J. Michael West, KENTUCKY ENERGY\\nAND ENVIRONMENT CABINET, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Amicus Curiae.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. How to use a large plot of land known as “Tract 46” in\\nPike County, Kentucky has been a point of contention between the plot’s joint owners for quite\\nsome time. The plot’s surface and mineral estates have been severed for a century. Today, the\\nPike Letcher Land Company and Johnson LLC each own the surface estate as tenants in\\ncommon. Pike Letcher also owns the entirety of the coal below. It wants to mine for the coal.\\nBut Pike Letcher and Johnson don’t see eye to eye on how Pike Letcher may use the surface\\nestate to pursue its planned mining activities.\\n\\n Pike Letcher wants to use the surface to extract the coal using surface mining methods.\\nTo that end, in 2013, Pike Letcher granted Premier Elkhorn Coal LLC, its affiliate, a right to\\nenter the land and commence surface mining. But Johnson objects to surface mining.\\nNonetheless, despite Johnson’s protestations, the State of Kentucky granted Elkhorn a surface\\nmining permit, and Elkhorn commenced operations in April 2014.\\n\\n Johnson has been challenging the validity of Elkhorn’s permit ever since—and with some\\nsuccess. In 2014, as the result of a lawsuit in federal court, the Secretary of the Interior\\ndetermined that Elkhorn’s permit violated federal law. Elkhorn then remedied the deficiencies in\\nits first permit, and Kentucky issued it an amended permit later the same year. On review, the\\nSecretary confirmed that, this time, Elkhorn’s permit complied with federal law. Johnson sued\\nagain. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) upheld the Secretary’s determination. The United\\nStates District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky affirmed. Johnson now appeals. For\\nthe following reasons, we affirm.\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n I.\\n\\n A. Legal Background\\n\\n Coal companies that hope to obtain a permit to surface mine must comply with certain\\nrequirements set out by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).\\nSMCRA was designed to “strike a balance between the nation’s interests in protecting the\\nenvironment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining and in assuring the coal supply\\nessential to the nation’s energy requirements.” Bragg v. W. Va. Coal Ass’n, 248 F.3d 275, 288\\n(4th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). It accomplishes these twin aims through a system that has\\nbeen described as “cooperative federalism.” Id.; Kentuckians for the Commonwealth v. U.S.\\nArmy Corps of Eng’rs., 746 F.3d 698, 701–02 (6th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Under its\\ncooperative framework, SMCRA sets national minimum requirements for surface mining but\\ninvites states to assume responsibility for enforcing them. Kentuckians for the Commonwealth,\\n746 F.3d at 701–02. States that wish to assume that responsibility must obtain approval from the\\nSecretary by creating their own regulatory program that is “capab[le] of carrying out” SMCRA’s\\nprovisions. 30 U.S.C. § 1253(a). Those states may even add to SMCRA’s minimum permitting\\nstandards, but they must not go below them. See id. Once the Secretary approves a state’s\\nprogram, the state assumes “exclusive jurisdiction” over surface mining activities on non-federal\\nlands within its borders. Id.; In re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litig., 653 F.2d 514,\\n519 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (en banc).\\n\\n The Secretary approved Kentucky’s regulatory program in 1982, and the Kentucky\\nEnergy and Environment Cabinet has administered the State’s program ever since. 30 C.F.R.\\n§ 917.10; see Ky. Rev. Stat. Ch. 350; 405 Ky. Admin. Regs. Ch. 1–30. But that did not end the\\nSecretary’s involvement with surface mining regulation within Kentucky’s borders. SMCRA\\nvests the Secretary with an ongoing obligation to ensure that state programs comport with the\\nfederal Act’s minimum requirements. 30 U.S.C. § 1253(a). In accordance with that oversight\\nauthority, whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that a person is in violation of a SMCRA\\npermit condition, and the state authority fails to take action to remedy the suspected violation,\\nthe Secretary must inspect the surface mining operation. 30 U.S.C. § 1271(a). If the Secretary’s\\ninspection confirms that a violation is occurring that creates an imminent harm to the health or\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nsafety of the public or the environment, it must issue a cessation order commanding the\\nimmediate termination of all surface mining activities. Id. § 1271(a)(2); 30 C.F.R.\\n§ 843.11(a)(1). Mining without a valid permit is a per se imminent harm that automatically\\ntriggers the issuance of a cessation order. 30 C.F.R. § 843.11(a)(2).\\n\\n Whether Elkhorn has a valid SMCRA-compliant permit is the question at the heart of this\\ncase. The answer turns on whether Elkhorn has met SMCRA’s minimum requirements for\\nestablishing a right to surface mine on Tract 46, a severed estate. For its permit to be valid,\\nElkhorn must have submitted documents to the Kentucky Cabinet that satisfied one of three\\navenues for establishing a right to surface mine. 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6); 30 C.F.R.\\n§ 778.15(b)(3). Those options are:\\n\\n (A) the written consent of the surface owner to the extraction of coal by surface\\n mining methods; or\\n (B) a conveyance that expressly grants or reserves the right to extract the coal by\\n surface mining methods; or\\n (C) if the conveyance does not expressly grant the right to extract coal by surface\\n mining methods, the surface-subsurface legal relationship shall be determined in\\n accordance with State law . . . .\\n\\n30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6).1 For ease of reference, we refer to these three statutory provisions as\\nsubsections (A), (B), and (C).\\n\\n Because Elkhorn’s current amended permit was issued pursuant to subsection (C), this\\ncase turns on the requirements of that subsection. However, prior litigation concerning\\nElkhorn’s permit hinged on the meaning of subsection (A). Because that litigation has some\\nrelevance to this one, we discuss it briefly below.\\n\\n B. Factual and Procedural Background\\n\\n The Kentucky Cabinet initially approved Elkhorn’s permit under subsection (A).\\nBecause none of the severance conveyances connected to Tract 46 expressly grant a right to\\n\\n 1Kentucky’s SMCRA regulatory analogue contains its own provision that is “substantively identical” to the\\nfederal act, 59 Fed. Reg. 27235, 27236 (May 26, 1994) (Director’s Finding #4), but it clarifies what documentation\\nan applicant must submit to establish its right to surface mine under each alternative method. See 405 Ky. Admin.\\nRegs. 8:030 § 4(2) (2014).\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nsurface mine, Elkhorn relied on a 2013 right of entry agreement between it and Pike Letcher to\\nestablish that right. The Cabinet believed that the right of entry agreement sufficiently\\ndocumented that Elkhorn had the “consent of the surface owner” to surface mine, as required by\\nsubsection (A). So the Cabinet approved Elkhorn’s permit, and Elkhorn began surface mining in\\nApril 2014.\\n\\n That approval spawned the first federal litigation over Elkhorn’s permit. Shortly after\\nElkhorn commenced mining, Johnson filed a “citizen suit” in the Eastern District of Kentucky,\\nunder a SMCRA provision that authorizes private parties to bring suit against the Secretary to\\n“compel compliance” with the Act. 30 U.S.C. § 1270(a). Johnson alleged that Elkhorn’s permit\\nwas invalid under SMCRA and thus moved for an injunction ordering Elkhorn to cease mining\\noperations. M.L. Johnson Family Props., LLC v. Jewell, 27 F. Supp. 3d 767, 773 (E.D. Ky.\\n2014) (“Johnson I”), vacated as moot, No. 14-5867, Order, R. No. 29-2 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2014).\\nThe district court agreed with Johnson. It held that the phrase “the surface owner” in subsection\\n(A) includes “all surface owners” who own a parcel as tenants in common. Id. at 771. Since\\nElkhorn had only the consent of Pike Letcher, and not Johnson, the court determined that the\\npermit fell short of subsection (A)’s requisites. Therefore, the court ordered the Secretary to\\nconduct an inspection of Elkhorn’s mining operations and enjoined Elkhorn from surface mining\\nwhile the inspection was pending.2 Id.\\n\\n Following the district court’s order, the Secretary conducted an inspection. It found that\\nElkhorn’s permit was invalid under subsection (A) and issued a cessation order prohibiting\\nElkhorn from continuing to surface mine on Tract 46. Id.\\n\\n While Johnson I was pending and the Secretary was conducting its inspection, Elkhorn\\nwas revising its permit application. Through its revisions, Elkhorn hoped to establish its right to\\nsurface mine under subsection (C), which directs “the regulatory authority” to determine “the\\nsurface-subsurface legal relationship . . . in accordance with State law.” 30 U.S.C.\\n§ 1260(b)(6)(C). Elkhorn resubmitted its right of entry agreement with Pike Letcher along with\\n\\n 2Elkhorn appealed Johnson I, but this court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the injunction. M.L.\\nJohnson Family Props. v. Premier Elkhorn Coal Co., No. 14-5867, Order, R. 29 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2014). The court\\ntook “no position on the merits” of the appeal. Id. at 3. The case remains pending in the district court.\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nits application. And it directed the Kentucky Cabinet to a Kentucky court of appeals decision,\\nJohnson v. Envtl. & Pub. Protection Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d 216, 219–20 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009)\\n(“Johnson v. Cabinet”). In that case, the court held that Kentucky’s cotenancy laws allowed one\\nsurface tenant to surface mine over its cotenants’ objections. Id. Applying that law, the Cabinet\\nconcluded that Elkhorn’s right of entry agreement with Pike Letcher, although “from less than all\\nco-owners” of Tract 46, was “sufficient to satisfy the . . . requirements to obtain a mining\\npermit” in accordance with state law. AR 0617. The Cabinet thus issued Elkhorn a new permit\\nto surface mine under subsection (C).\\n\\n The Secretary then inspected Elkhorn’s revised permit and confirmed that the permit\\ncomplied with subsection (C). Consequently, it terminated the cessation order prohibiting\\nElkhorn from surface mining.\\n\\n That termination decision spawned the federal litigation now before us. Johnson\\nadministratively challenged the Secretary’s termination decision in the Hearings Division of the\\nDepartment of the Interior’s Office of Hearings and Appeals. On October 30, 2015, an ALJ\\nupheld the Secretary’s termination decision, concluding that Elkhorn’s permit comported with\\nsubsection (C)’s requirements. Johnson then administratively appealed the ALJ’s decision to the\\nInterior Board of Land Appeals of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (“Appeals Board”).\\nWhile that appeal was still pending, Johnson also sought review of the ALJ’s decision in federal\\ncourt. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky held that the ALJ’s\\ndecision was not arbitrary or capricious or in violation of law and granted summary judgment in\\nfavor of the Secretary, as well as Elkhorn, who had intervened as a defendant in the federal suit.\\n\\n Johnson now appeals.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo but review the\\nagency’s decision under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard mandated by SMCRA and the\\nAdministrative Procedure Act (APA). Coal. for Gov’t Procurement v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc.,\\n365 F.3d 435, 457 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2) (“Any\\naction subject to judicial review under this subsection shall be affirmed unless the court\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nconcludes that such action is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law.”). We\\nlook only to “the record made before the Secretary,” and treat the Secretary’s factual findings as\\nconclusive “if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.” 30\\nU.S.C. § 1276(b); see also Appolo Fuels, Inc. v. Babbitt, 270 F.3d 333, 337 (6th Cir. 2001).\\nQuestions of law, however, are considered de novo, giving deference to the agency only for its\\nreasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute it is charged with administering. R/T 182, LLC\\nv. FAA, 519 F.3d 307, 309 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); Am. Nuclear Res., Inc. v. U.S.\\nDep’t of Labor, 134 F.3d 1292, 1294 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res.\\nDef. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Before moving to the merits of Johnson’s arguments, we pause to address an initial\\nhurdle that Johnson must clear to have its case heard in federal court: administrative exhaustion.\\nAlthough we have jurisdiction under 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2) to review the Secretary’s\\ntermination of the cessation order, we still must ensure that Johnson exhausted its claims at the\\nadministrative level before we consider them. S. Ohio Coal Co. v. Office of Surface Mining,\\nReclamation & Enf’t, Dep’t of Interior, 20 F.3d 1418, 1425 (1994); Shawnee Coal Co. v. Andrus,\\n661 F.2d 1083, 1090–91 (6th Cir. 1981). That’s because, as we have previously held, “SMCRA\\nunambiguously requires resort to the prescribed administrative review process before” a party\\nmay seek judicial review. S. Ohio Coal Co., 20 F.3d at 1425.\\n\\n The exhaustion inquiry in this case centers on whether the ALJ decision before us is a\\nfinal decision. A claim is administratively exhausted if it results in a “final decision . . . subject\\nto judicial review.” Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 1991). Elkhorn argues that\\nthe ALJ decision does not fit that bill because, under SMCRA implementing regulations, only a\\ndecision rendered by the Appeals Board, and not an ALJ, constitutes a final decision. Johnson\\nacknowledges that, normally, only decisions by the Appeals Board are final but says that an\\nexception to that rule makes the ALJ decision in this case a final one. We agree with Johnson.\\n\\n Congress may define what constitutes a final decision. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S.\\n749, 766–77 (1975). Or, it may delegate that task to the agency itself. Id. Congress does not\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\ndefine finality in the text of SMCRA, so the Secretary fleshes out its meaning through\\nregulations. Those regulations provide a general finality definition that makes only decisions of\\nthe Appeals Board “final . . . agency action subject to judicial review . . . .” 43 C.F.R. § 4.21(c),\\n(d). But the regulations also contain a narrow carve-out to that general rule. The carve-out is\\ntriggered if, simultaneous to filing an appeal with the Appeals Board, the litigant petitions for a\\nstay of the ALJ decision until the appeal is resolved. Id. § 4.21(a)(2). In that case, if the Appeals\\nBoard denies or “fails to act on the petition” to stay “within 45 calendar days of the” appeal\\ndeadline, then the ALJ decision becomes a “final” decision “subject to judicial review.” Id.\\n§ 4.21(a)(3), (b)(4), (c).\\n\\n That carve-out has straightforward application here. Johnson timely appealed the ALJ’s\\nruling to the Appeals Board and simultaneously asked the Board to stay the ALJ’s ruling until it\\nresolved the appeal. Forty-five days after Johnson’s appeal deadline, the Appeals Board still had\\nnot answered Elkhorn’s request for a stay. At that point, the ALJ’s decision, even though\\npending appeal before the agency, became “final,” according to 43 C.F.R. § 4.21(c).\\n\\n Although § 4.21(c) seems to have obvious application to this case, Elkhorn contends that\\nit is the wrong place to look and urges the court to turn to § 4.1101(a) instead. That section vests\\nthe Appeals Board with “authority to exercise the final decisionmaking power of the Secretary\\nunder the act . . . .” 43 C.F.R. § 4.1101(a). Because only the Appeals Board possesses “final\\ndecisionmaking power,” Elkhorn’s argument goes, only the Appeals Board, and not an ALJ, can\\nissue a final decision subject to judicial review. But the fact that the Appeals Board possesses\\nfinal decisionmaking power does not mean an ALJ may never issue a final decision. SMCRA\\nregulations allow the Appeals Board to exercise its final decisionmaking power with discretion.\\nIf the Appeals Board stays an ALJ decision pending appeal, then it assumes responsibility for\\nissuing a final, judicially reviewable decision. On the other hand, according to § 4.21(c), if the\\nAppeals Board denies or declines to act on a simultaneously filed stay petition within the\\nprescribed forty-five-day window, then it has effectively “decided” that the ALJ opinion will be\\nthe final, judicially reviewable decision. That is exactly what happened here.\\n\\n Even so, Elkhorn asserts that Shawnee and Southern Ohio expressly hold that only\\ndecisions from the Appeals Board are final. Yet Elkhorn misrepresents the holdings of those\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\ncases. Shawnee and Southern Ohio simply state that SMCRA mandates exhaustion. See S. Ohio\\nCoal Co., 20 F.3d at 1425; Shawnee, 661 F.2d at 1091. They do not say, however, when a\\ndecision becomes final and SMCRA’s exhaustion requirements are met. But SMCRA\\nregulations do. And they make clear that the ALJ’s decision in this case became final once the\\nAppeals Board declined to act on Johnson’s stay petition within forty-five days of the appeal\\ndeadline. 43 C.F.R. § 4.21(c). Johnson therefore exhausted its administrative remedies to the\\nextent required by SMCRA.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n Satisfied that Johnson has cleared this exhaustion hurdle, we move to the merits of its\\nclaims against Elkhorn. Johnson says the ALJ’s affirmance of the Secretary’s termination of the\\ncessation order was arbitrary, capricious, or inconsistent with law for three main reasons: (1) the\\nSecretary and the ALJ erroneously concluded that subsection (C) allows the Kentucky Cabinet to\\nissue surface mining permits in reliance on Kentucky’s cotenancy law3; (2) when the Kentucky\\nCabinet issued Elkhorn’s revised permit over Johnson’s objections it unlawfully adjudicated a\\n“property rights dispute” in violation of 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6)(C); and (3) the Kentucky\\nCabinet should have withheld Elkhorn’s permit under 30 U.S.C. § 1257(b)(9), because Elkhorn\\nfailed to disclose on its revised application the existence of Johnson’s still-pending lawsuit,\\nJohnson I. We address each argument in turn.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n The Secretary terminated its cessation order after concluding that Elkhorn’s amended\\npermit complied with the statutory requirements set out in subsection (C). And the ALJ upheld\\nthat decision after determining that subsection (C) allows a regulatory authority to turn to any\\nstate law to assess whether a permit applicant has submitted documents demonstrating it has a\\n\\n 3Johnson also argues that Kentucky’s regulatory analogue to subsection (C), 405 Ky. Admin. Regs. 8:030\\n§ 4(2)(c), likewise prohibits reliance on Kentucky’s cotenancy law. But the Kentucky regulation is not relevant to\\nour review of the Secretary’s decision to terminate the cessation order. The Secretary’s decision was based on the\\nconclusion that Elkhorn’s permit complied with SMCRA’s permitting requirements. This case, therefore, deals only\\nwith the Secretary’s interpretation of SMCRA and not the Kentucky regulation. Johnson could have challenged the\\nCabinet’s permitting decision as inconsistent with Kentucky’s regulations. AR 0134; see Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.\\n§ 350.0301(1). It chose to challenge the Secretary’s decision instead. The Secretary’s decision, then, is the only\\ndecision we review.\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nright to surface mine. Under that reading of the provision, the ALJ explained, the Cabinet was\\npermitted to rely on Kentucky’s law of cotenancy to approve Elkhorn’s permit. Johnson argues\\nthat subsection (C) is narrower, permitting the Cabinet to consider only state-law rules of\\nconstruction for interpreting severance conveyances that do not expressly grant a right to surface\\nmine.4\\n\\n We agree with the Secretary that subsection (C) permits the Cabinet to rely on any state\\nlaw in making its permitting decision. Therefore, the ALJ’s application of Kentucky cotenancy\\nlaw, instead of the state’s rules of construction for vague severance deeds, to uphold the issuance\\nof Elkhorn’s permit and the Secretary’s termination of the cessation order was not arbitrary,\\ncapricious, or contrary to law.\\n\\n 1. Subsection (C)\\n Our interpretation of subsection (C) begins and ends with the provision’s text. Robinson\\nv. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997). Subsection (C) states:\\n\\n If the conveyance does not expressly grant the right to extract coal by surface\\n mining methods, the surface-subsurface legal relationship shall be determined in\\n accordance with State law . . . .\\n\\n30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6)(C). On its face, the text does not limit the source of state law that a\\nregulatory authority may consult to make a permitting decision. It simply instructs the\\nregulatory authority to determine the surface-subsurface legal relationship of an estate “in\\naccordance with State law.” Read naturally, the unmodified phrase “State law” embraces the use\\nof any state law. Cf. Levin v. Miss. River Fuel Corp., 386 U.S. 162, 168 (1967) (“In using the\\nlanguage ‘required under applicable State law,’ § 5(11) [of the Interstate Commerce Act]\\nembraced all state law . . . .”). That includes the full range of a state’s “legislation, judicial\\nprecedents, and accepted legal principles,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1015 (10th ed. 2014), not\\nonly state-law rules for interpreting severance conveyances.\\n\\n 4The specific rule of construction that Johnson believes applies here comes from the Broad Form Deed\\nAmendment to Kentucky’s Constitution. That amendment provides that severance deeds that do not expressly grant\\na right to surface mine must be interpreted to allow “coal extraction by only the . . . methods . . . commonly known\\nto be in use . . . at the time the instrument was executed.” Johnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d at 221 (quoting Ky.\\nConst. § 19(2)). Because surface mining was not commonly in use at the time the severance conveyances connected\\nto Tract 46 were executed, they do not grant a right to surface mine under the Amendment.\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n Johnson reads subsection (C) differently. Under Johnson’s interpretation, the provision\\nunambiguously allows the regulatory authority to turn to state law only for determining the\\nsurface-subsurface legal relationship as defined by the severance conveyance and not any other\\ndocument. Arriving at that interpretation, however, requires several feats of textual acrobatics\\nthat only contort a straightforward text.\\n\\n Johnson’s first maneuver misconstrues the relationship between subsection (C)’s two\\nclauses. According to Johnson, the first clause announces a purpose that informs the meaning of\\nthe second clause. And because the first clause references “the conveyance,” Johnson says that\\nits purpose is to provide a method for interpreting a severance conveyance. That means, Johnson\\ncontends, that the “surface-subsurface legal relationship” in the second clause is a legal\\nrelationship that may only be defined by a severance conveyance—and, therefore, the only\\nrelevant “State law” is that which helps the regulatory authority construe the severance\\nconveyance.\\n\\n But that argument mischaracterizes the function of subsection (C)’s first clause. The\\nclause is a classic conditional statement. As a conditional statement, rather than announcing the\\npurpose of the entire subsection, it simply limits the subsection’s applicability. When, according\\nto the conditional statement, does subsection (C) apply? Only “if the conveyance does not\\nexpressly grant a right to surface mine.” And what does the regulatory authority do when that\\ncondition is met? The remainder of subsection (C) tells us: the regulator determines “the\\nsurface-subsurface legal relationship . . . in accordance with State law.” No portion of\\nsubsection (C)’s text limits the realm of documents the regulatory authority may consult to make\\nthat state-law determination. Thus, any document that state law deems relevant—whether the\\nseverance conveyance, a right of entry lease, or otherwise—may inform the regulatory\\nauthority’s permitting decision under subsection (C).\\n\\n Johnson’s second syntactical stunt attempts to rely on the canon of harmonious reading.\\nSee FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (“A court\\nmust . . . interpret the statute ‘as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme,’ and ‘fit, if\\npossible, all parts into an harmonious whole.” (internal citations omitted)). Johnson posits that\\nthe only way to read subsections (A), (B), and (C) harmoniously is to interpret subsection (C) as\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nrequiring the application of state law to the severance conveyance. In support of that view,\\nJohnson emphasizes that subsections (B) and (C) both mention a conveyance, whereas\\nsubsection (A) only discusses consent. The way Johnson sees it, this difference in language\\nindicates that Congress intended to provide only two methods of establishing a right to surface\\nmine: by a conveyance or by consent. The only difference between subsections (B) and (C),\\nJohnson contends, is that the latter “merely specifies the choice of law when interpreting rights\\nthat are not explicit in the [conveyance].” Appellant Br. 31.\\n\\n Reading the subsections harmoniously, however, does not mandate such a narrow\\ninterpretation of subsection (C). An equally harmonious interpretation is that when an applicant\\nhas neither the consent of all surface owners, as allowed under subsection (A), nor an express\\nconveyance, as allowed under subsection (B), it may establish a right to surface mine through\\nany other method “in accordance with State law” under subsection (C). That interpretation does\\nnot create any inconsistencies between the three subsections.\\n\\n Finally, Johnson urges that reading subsection (C) too broadly renders subsection (A)\\nsuperfluous. That is, if subsection (C) allows resort to Kentucky cotenancy law, which\\nauthorizes surface mining based on the consent of fewer than all surface owners, then subsection\\n(A)’s complete-consent requirement no longer plays any role whatsoever in a state’s permitting\\ndeterminations. That argument also fails to carry the day. Even Johnson acknowledges that not\\nevery state allows one tenant to surface mine over a cotenant’s objections. Appellant Br. 34. It\\nmay be true that, as a practical matter, subsection (A) plays a diminished role in Kentucky. But\\nwe do not read nationally applicable statutes through a single-state lens.\\n\\n In fact, SMCRA’s national application in a domain traditionally controlled by the states is\\njust one more reason to interpret subsection (C) broadly, allowing consideration of any state law\\nto determine whether the surface-subsurface legal relationship includes a right to surface mine.\\nBecause “‘property’ and ‘interests in property’ are creatures of state law,” Barnhill v. Johnson,\\n503 U.S. 393, 398 (1992), we should expect a “‘clear and manifest’ statement from Congress”\\nthat it intended to preempt certain state property laws governing the right to surface mine before\\ninterpreting SMCRA as doing so, Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 738 (2006) (citation\\nomitted). There is no “clear and manifest” statement of such intent in this case. To be sure, as\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nElkhorn points out, SMCRA’s “cooperative federalism” framework is designed to impose on\\nstates more restrictive regulations governing the practice of surface mining, in part to protect the\\nrights of landowners. See 30 U.S.C. § 1202(b) (listing as another purpose “assur[ing] that the\\nright of surface landowners . . . are fully protected from [surface mining] operations”). But that\\nis just one purpose the Act furthers. The statute lists twelve more, including “encourag[ing] the\\nfull utilization of coal resources,” id. § 1202(k), and assuring “that the coal supply essential to\\nthe Nation’s energy requirements . . . is provided,” id. § 1202(f). That Congress also listed\\nprotecting landowners among those purposes does not prove that it unequivocally intended to\\noverride some state property laws—but not others—governing rights of entry. Cf. Crow Tribe of\\nIndians v. Peters, 835 F. Supp. 2d 985, 992 (D. Mont. 2011) (“[B]oth SMCRA and its\\nimplementing regulations make clear that nothing in the surface owner protections are to be\\nconstrued as increasing or diminishing any property rights.”).\\n\\n The text of subsection (C), then, is quite clear: when a conveyance does not expressly\\ngrant the right to surface mine, the regulatory authority may rely on any state law to determine\\nwhether the documents describing the surface-subsurface legal relationship of the severed estate\\ngrant such a right. Because subsection (C) is plain and unambiguous, our analysis ends where it\\nbegan: with the statutory text. Robins, 519 U.S. at 340. We need not consider Johnson’s lengthy\\ncitations to conflicting legislative history. Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 147–48 (1994)\\n(“[W]e do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear.”). And we need\\nnot defer to the Secretary’s own interpretation of the text (although we note that doing so in this\\ncase would yield the same result). Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844 (holding that when a statute is\\nambiguous, the court “may not substitute its own construction . . . for a reasonable interpretation\\nmade by the . . . agency”).\\n\\n 2. The ALJ’s Decision\\n\\n The ALJ, arriving at the same interpretation we do, found Kentucky’s cotenancy law\\napplicable to Elkhorn’s permit and concluded that Elkhorn’s permit was issued in accordance\\nwith cotenancy law outlined by a Kentucky appellate case, Johnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d 216\\n(Ky. Ct. App. 2009). Therefore, the ALJ held that Elkhorn’s revised permit was valid under\\nsubsection (C) and upheld the Secretary’s decision to terminate the cessation order. The ALJ’s\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\napplication of the cotenancy law outlined by Johnson v. Cabinet was not arbitrary, capricious, or\\ncontrary to law. See 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2).\\n\\n In Johnson v. Cabinet, the Kentucky court of appeals ruled that “a cotenant ha[s] the right\\nto begin strip mining operations on . . . property despite objections from another cotenant.”\\nJohnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d at 220. That holding derived from the common law principle\\nthat “[a] cotenant may use and enjoy a common estate in real property in the same manner as if\\nhe or she were the sole owner.” Id. at 219 (citing York v. Warren Oil & Gas Co., 229 S.W. 114\\n(Ky. 1921)). Applying that principle, Johnson v. Cabinet determined that a right of entry lease\\nexecuted between only one surface tenant and a coal mining company demonstrated that the coal\\ncompany had a right to surface mine even over other surface tenants’ objections. Id. at 220.\\n\\n The ALJ was not wrong to apply that precedent to this case. Here, just like the coal\\ncompany in Johnson v. Cabinet, Elkhorn established its right to enter and surface mine by\\nrelying on a right of entry agreement with one of the plot’s surface owners, Pike Letcher. And\\nhere, just as in Johnson v. Cabinet, some surface owners objected to surface mining. There is no\\nmeaningful difference between Johnson v. Cabinet and this case that would make Kentucky’s\\nlaw of cotenancy applicable there but not here.\\n\\n Johnson’s counterargument is unconvincing. Johnson argues that Kentucky’s law of\\ncotenancy only “defines the surface-surface legal relationship rather than the surface-subsurface\\nlegal relationship, as mandated by [subsection (C)].” Appellant Br. 23. When it comes to the\\nsurface-subsurface legal relationship, Johnson again asserts, only the severance conveyance\\ncontrols—and that means that the only relevant state law is that which guides the regulatory\\nauthority’s interpretation of the severance conveyance. But Johnson v. Cabinet considered and\\nexpressly rejected the same argument by the nonconsenting cotenants there. The court explained\\nthat, in Kentucky, the law “does not make a distinction between surface and mineral interests\\nwhen construing the mutual rights, duties and liabilities of cotenants”—the general rules of\\ncotenancy “carr[y] over into the field of minerals, which are simply part of the land.”\\n289 S.W.3d at 220–21 (discussing cases). Moreover, Kentucky’s rules regarding the\\ninterpretation of severance conveyances, Johnson v. Cabinet explained, “did not change in any\\nfundamental way the long-standing law of cotenancy.” Id. at 221 (citation omitted). The court\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\nconcluded that when an applicant to surface mine based its right to do so on a surface lease\\nagreement, and not a severance conveyance, Kentucky cotenancy law applied. Elkhorn itself\\nbased its right to surface mine on its surface entry agreement with Pike Letcher rather than any\\nseverance conveyance. Therefore, according to Johnson v. Cabinet, the State’s cotenancy laws\\ngovern. Johnson thus fails to show that the ALJ’s application of Kentucky cotenancy law in its\\nreview of the Secretary’s termination decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n SMCRA places an important limitation on a regulatory authority’s power: in the course\\nof reviewing permit applications, the regulatory authority may not “adjudicate property rights\\ndisputes.” 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6)(C). Johnson asserts that the Cabinet and the Secretary\\nviolated this restriction by approving Elkhorn’s revised permit application in spite of Johnson’s\\nobjections to Elkhorn’s right to surface mine. According to Johnson, because of its ongoing\\nobjection to Elkhorn’s right, SMCRA implicitly required Elkhorn to obtain a final, unappealable\\nstate court judgment affirming that it had a right to surface mine under state law before obtaining\\na permit. The ALJ and district court both rejected that argument. So do we.\\n\\n SMCRA’s prohibition against adjudicating a property rights dispute appears at the end of\\nits list of potential ways an applicant may establish a right to surface mine on a severed estate.\\nThe end of that list begins with a (now-familiar) command and ends with the important property-\\nrights-dispute caveat. It reads: “[I]f the conveyance does not expressly grant the right to extract\\ncoal by surface mining methods, the surface-subsurface legal relationship shall be determined in\\naccordance with State law: Provided, That nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize\\nthe regulatory authority to adjudicate property rights disputes.” 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6)(C)\\n(underline added).\\n\\n SMCRA does not define what constitutes “property rights disputes.” Johnson argues that\\nthe phrase covers any disagreement over an applicant’s right to surface mine, including\\nJohnson’s disagreement over the range of applicable state law under subsection (C). But that\\ninterpretation of the phrase is too broad. The restriction against adjudicating property rights\\ndisputes operates as an exception from the general mandate that the regulatory authority\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\ndetermine whether a permit applicant has established that it has a right to surface mine. See\\n64 Fed. Reg. 70766, 70807–08 (Dec. 17, 1999) (adopting the reasoning from two Eastern\\nDistrict of Kentucky cases holding that the regulatory authority has an obligation to\\n“administratively ascertain that a prima facie showing of the right to surface mine under state\\nlaw has been properly documented by the applicant” (citations omitted)). As an exception to that\\ngeneral mandate, it should be construed narrowly. Comm’r v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989)\\n(“[W]e usually read [an] exception narrowly in order to preserve the primary operation of the\\nprovision.”).\\n\\n A few court cases and administrative decisions provide an appropriately narrow\\ndescription of the “property rights disputes” encompassed by SMCRA. Those cases conclude\\nthat such disputes challenge the validity or interpretation of a conveyance, the location of a\\nparcel’s boundary lines, allegations of waste or ouster, or other disagreements related to\\nownership over the land. See Akers v. Baldwin, No. 84-88, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law\\nand Order at 12 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 28, 1985), R. 64-3, PID 745 (property rights disputes over which\\nthe Cabinet lacks jurisdiction are those dealing with “whether any given conveyance had been\\nobtained by fraud, whether the consent obtained was signed by the proper heirs to a particular\\ntract of land, whether there was a boundary line or other dispute concerning the realty’s\\ndescription, and other such individualized matters”); Akers v. Bradley, No. 84-88, Opinion,\\nOrder and Judgment 2 (E.D. Ky. June 20, 1988), R. 64-6, PID 752 (reiterating the definition in\\nBaldwin); Foster E. Sword, 138 IBLA 74, 81 (Feb. 3, 1997) (describing a disagreement over the\\nlocation of a property boundary line as “a property title or rights dispute[]” that the Cabinet\\ncannot resolve); Paul F. Kuhn, 120 IBLA 1, 9 (July 3, 1991) (concluding that a dispute over\\nproper surveying reference points for demarcating property boundary lines is “clearly a property\\ndispute” outside the Cabinet’s jurisdiction); Johnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d at 221–22 (listing\\nlawsuits alleging ouster or waste among the types of “property rights” disputes over which the\\nKentucky Cabinet has no jurisdiction (citations omitted)); Dep’t for Nat. Res. & Env’t Prot. v.\\nStearns Coal & Lumber Co., 563 S.W.2d 471, 473 & n.4 (Ky. 1978) (emphasizing that disputes\\nover the proper interpretation of a deed are proper for Kentucky state courts and not for the\\nCabinet to resolve).\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\n Johnson’s objection to Elkhorn’s permit does not fit within that narrow category of\\nproperty rights disputes. Johnson does not contest the validity of any deed connected to Tract 46\\nor the right of entry agreement between Pike Letcher and Elkhorn. Instead, Johnson contests the\\nCabinet’s application of settled Kentucky cotenancy law to Elkhorn’s permit and the Secretary’s\\naffirmance that the Cabinet’s application of that law was consistent with the requirements of\\nsubsection (C). Moreover, Johnson actually concedes that under Kentucky cotenancy law\\nElkhorn’s right of entry agreement gives it a right to surface mine. Appellant Br. 20.\\nNonetheless, Johnson argues that the text of subsection (C) makes cotenancy law irrelevant.\\nThat is a dispute over statutory interpretation, not property rights.\\n\\n What is more, Johnson’s assertion that the Cabinet must withhold a permit until every\\npossible dispute between landowners is resolved by a final, unappealable state court judgment is\\nunsupported (as Johnson acknowledges) by SMCRA’s express requirements. The cases Johnson\\ncites do not support that position either—unlike this one, those cases dealt with bona fide\\nproperty rights disputes. In the first case, the applicant’s right to surface mine was subject to a\\ndispute over the questionable validity of the applicant’s surface lease. Ky. S. Coal Corp. v. Ky.\\nEnergy & Env’t. Cabinet (“KSCC”), 396 S.W.3d 804, 805–07 (Ky. 2013) (finding that a bona\\nfide property rights dispute existed when the applicant’s right of entry agreement expired while\\nits application was pending, and it was unclear how a prior state court judgment affected the\\nexpiration of the mining rights contained in the lease). In the second case, the right to surface\\nmine hinged on the proper interpretation of an ambiguous deed. Marion Taylor, 125 IBLA 271\\n(Feb. 14, 1993), vacated, Coal-Mac, Inc. v. Babbitt, Case No. 7:93-cv-00117-JMH, R. 48, at 272\\n(E.D. Ky. Aug. 9, 1995) (concluding that a bona fide property rights dispute existed over\\nwhether a deed’s grant of “all mining rights” to the mineral owner included the right to surface\\nmine). Here, however, there is no quarrel over the validity or interpretation of the right of entry\\nagreement between Elkhorn and Pike Letcher. Consequently, neither KSCC nor Marion help\\nJohnson’s efforts to fit this case within the category of “property rights disputes” that must be\\nresolved in state court before the regulatory authority may issue a permit to surface mine.\\n\\n Finally, it is worth noting the types of property rights claims Johnson could have raised in\\nthe appropriate tribunal but did not. Johnson could have asserted in state proceedings that\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\nJohnson v. Cabinet was incorrectly decided, but it declined to do so. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.\\n§ 350.0301(1). Johnson likewise refrained from initiating a state-court action alleging waste,\\nseeking a partition, or pursuing other forms of relief from Elkhorn’s surface mining activities.\\nSee Johnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d at 221–22; Kelley v. Kelley, No. 2010-CA-000831-MR,\\n2011 WL 6412079, at *1 (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2011). Those actions would fall within the\\nrealm of property rights disputes that the Cabinet and the Secretary have no authority to resolve.\\nJohnson’s dispute over the proper interpretation of SMCRA does not.\\n\\n For all these reasons, it was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for the ALJ to\\nconclude that neither the Cabinet nor the Secretary adjudicated a property rights dispute when\\nthey approved Elkhorn’s revised permit and terminated the cessation order, respectively.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n Johnson’s final claim has to do with one of SMCRA’s disclosure requirements. Every\\napplicant for a permit to surface mine must inform the regulatory authority whether its “legal\\nright to enter and commence surface mining operations . . . is the subject of pending litigation.”\\n30 U.S.C. § 1257(b)(9). Johnson says Elkhorn violated that disclosure rule because it omitted\\nthe pending Johnson I suit from its revised application for a permit. In its revised application,\\nJohnson submitted a standard form that asks the applicant whether “any rights to enter and mine\\nthe area, as claimed by the applicant, [are] subject to any pending litigation.” AR 0825-1642.\\nJohnson answered, “N/A.” Id. Of course, at the time Elkhorn submitted its revised application,\\nthe Johnson I suit was still (indeed, is still) pending in federal court. So, Johnson asserts,\\nElkhorn should have listed the suit on its application, and its failure to do so made the application\\ninaccurate and incomplete. Therefore, Johnson contends, the Cabinet could not have lawfully\\nissued Elkhorn’s permit, because SMCRA allows it to issue a permit only upon finding that “the\\npermit application is accurate and complete . . . .” Id. § 1260(b)(1). We are unconvinced.\\n\\n To start, it is doubtful that the Johnson I litigation is the kind of “pending litigation” that\\nis subject to SMCRA’s disclosure requirements. The district court concluded, albeit without\\nexplanation, that the purpose behind SMCRA’s disclosure rule is to keep the Cabinet from\\nunlawfully adjudicating a property rights dispute. The parties (including Johnson) seem to\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\nassume the correctness of that proposition, although they likewise fail to cite any supporting\\nauthority. If that really is its purpose, then Elkhorn had no duty to disclose the pending lawsuit\\non its application, because the lawsuit is not a property rights dispute.\\n\\n Yet even if Elkhorn was required to disclose the lawsuit on the application, its failure to\\ndo so was harmless error. Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d 623, 637 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[T]his court\\napplies a harmless-error rule to APA cases, such that a mistake that has no bearing on the\\nultimate decision or causes no prejudice shall not be the basis for reversing an agency’s\\ndetermination.” (citation omitted)); see also 5 U.S.C. § 706 (stating that judicial review of\\nagency action shall take “due account . . . of the rule of prejudicial error”). That is because all\\nparties, including the Cabinet and the Secretary, were aware of the ongoing litigation in Johnson\\nI. The Cabinet’s actual knowledge means that it had the opportunity to withhold Elkhorn’s\\npermit if it believed the suit’s existence undermined Elkhorn’s eligibility for a permit to surface\\nmine. And the Secretary could have refused to terminate the cessation order if it concluded the\\nCabinet issued Elkhorn’s permit in violation of SMCRA’s disclosure provision. Accordingly,\\neven assuming Elkhorn should have indicated on its revised application that Johnson I remained\\npending, its failure to do so was harmless error and therefore cannot justify undoing the ALJ’s\\ndecision.\\n\\n V.\\n\\n Finally, the Kentucky Cabinet, acting as Amicus Curiae, raises a host of additional\\narguments that it says go to this court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case. In fact, none of\\nthe Cabinet’s arguments raise jurisdictional concerns. Briefly, the Cabinet first argues that the\\ncourt has no authority to review the Secretary’s decision to terminate the cessation order or to\\ncompel the Secretary to re-issue the order. But SMCRA allows for judicial review of any of the\\nSecretary’s orders or decisions, including decisions concerning the issuance, modification, or\\ntermination of cessation orders. 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2); id § 1275. Hence, the court does have\\njurisdiction to review the termination decision here. The Cabinet also asserts that Johnson’s\\nappeal amounts to an improper collateral attack on Kentucky’s permitting decision and, by\\nextension, the State’s SMCRA-implementing regulations. But Johnson does not ask the court to\\nreview the Cabinet’s decision to issue the permit pursuant to its own regulations; rather, it asks\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\nus to review the Secretary’s determination that the permit complied with SMCRA. For that\\nreason, we address SMCRA’s statutory requirements only, and leave any differences in the\\nKentucky permitting requirements for another court on another day. Finally, the Cabinet takes\\nissue with the Secretary’s issuance of the cessation order in the first instance, arguing that in\\nissuing it the Secretary did not comply with SMCRA’s procedural requisites. Whatever the\\nmerits of that argument, it has no bearing on jurisdiction. And because it was not “raised below”\\nor “advanced in this court by any party,” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 721\\n(2014), we decline to address it.\\n\\n VI.\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4396974/\", \"author_raw\": \"McKEAGUE\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MCKEAGUE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFIN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"NALBANDIAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619721/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: M.L. JOHNSON FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David L. BERNHARDT, Secretary of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee, Premier Elkhorn Coal LLC, Intervenor-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-15\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0091p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n M.L. JOHNSON FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\n │\n │\n v. > No. 18-5520\n │\n │\n DAVID L. BERNHARDT, Secretary of the Interior, │\n Defendant-Appellee, │\n │\n PREMIER ELKHORN COAL LLC, │\n │\n Intervenor-Appellee.\n │\n │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville.\n No. 7:16-cv-00006—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.\n\n Argued: March 19, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 15, 2019\n\n Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Mary Varson Cromer, APPALACHIAN CITIZENS’ LAW CENTER, Whitesburg,\nKentucky, for Appellant. Corinne Snow, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,\nWashington, D.C., for Federal Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mary Varson Cromer, APPALACHIAN\nCITIZENS’ LAW CENTER, Whitesburg, Kentucky, Joe F. Childers, JOE F. CHILDERS &\nASSOCIATES, Lexington, Kentucky, Walton D. Morris, Jr., MORRIS LAW OFFICE, P.C.,\nCharlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Eric Grant, J. David Gunter II, Dustin J. Maghamfar,\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Federal Appellee.\nJohn C. Martin, HOLLAND & HART LLP, Washington, D.C., Thomas C. Means, CROWELL\n& MORING LLP, Washington, D.C., Charles J. Baird, BAIRD & BAIRD, PSC, Pikeville,\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 2\n\n\nKentucky, for Intervenor Appellee. Samuel J. Short, J. Michael West, KENTUCKY ENERGY\nAND ENVIRONMENT CABINET, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Amicus Curiae.\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. How to use a large plot of land known as “Tract 46” in\nPike County, Kentucky has been a point of contention between the plot’s joint owners for quite\nsome time. The plot’s surface and mineral estates have been severed for a century. Today, the\nPike Letcher Land Company and Johnson LLC each own the surface estate as tenants in\ncommon. Pike Letcher also owns the entirety of the coal below. It wants to mine for the coal.\nBut Pike Letcher and Johnson don’t see eye to eye on how Pike Letcher may use the surface\nestate to pursue its planned mining activities.\n\n Pike Letcher wants to use the surface to extract the coal using surface mining methods.\nTo that end, in 2013, Pike Letcher granted Premier Elkhorn Coal LLC, its affiliate, a right to\nenter the land and commence surface mining. But Johnson objects to surface mining.\nNonetheless, despite Johnson’s protestations, the State of Kentucky granted Elkhorn a surface\nmining permit, and Elkhorn commenced operations in April 2014.\n\n Johnson has been challenging the validity of Elkhorn’s permit ever since—and with some\nsuccess. In 2014, as the result of a lawsuit in federal court, the Secretary of the Interior\ndetermined that Elkhorn’s permit violated federal law. Elkhorn then remedied the deficiencies in\nits first permit, and Kentucky issued it an amended permit later the same year. On review, the\nSecretary confirmed that, this time, Elkhorn’s permit complied with federal law. Johnson sued\nagain. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) upheld the Secretary’s determination. The United\nStates District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky affirmed. Johnson now appeals. For\nthe following reasons, we affirm.\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 3\n\n\n I.\n\n A. Legal Background\n\n Coal companies that hope to obtain a permit to surface mine must comply with certain\nrequirements set out by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).\nSMCRA was designed to “strike a balance between the nation’s interests in protecting the\nenvironment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining and in assuring the coal supply\nessential to the nation’s energy requirements.” Bragg v. W. Va. Coal Ass’n, 248 F.3d 275, 288\n(4th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). It accomplishes these twin aims through a system that has\nbeen described as “cooperative federalism.” Id.; Kentuckians for the Commonwealth v. U.S.\nArmy Corps of Eng’rs., 746 F.3d 698, 701–02 (6th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Under its\ncooperative framework, SMCRA sets national minimum requirements for surface mining but\ninvites states to assume responsibility for enforcing them. Kentuckians for the Commonwealth,\n746 F.3d at 701–02. States that wish to assume that responsibility must obtain approval from the\nSecretary by creating their own regulatory program that is “capab[le] of carrying out” SMCRA’s\nprovisions. 30 U.S.C. § 1253(a). Those states may even add to SMCRA’s minimum permitting\nstandards, but they must not go below them. See id. Once the Secretary approves a state’s\nprogram, the state assumes “exclusive jurisdiction” over surface mining activities on non-federal\nlands within its borders. Id.; In re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litig., 653 F.2d 514,\n519 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (en banc).\n\n The Secretary approved Kentucky’s regulatory program in 1982, and the Kentucky\nEnergy and Environment Cabinet has administered the State’s program ever since. 30 C.F.R.\n§ 917.10; see Ky. Rev. Stat. Ch. 350; 405 Ky. Admin. Regs. Ch. 1–30. But that did not end the\nSecretary’s involvement with surface mining regulation within Kentucky’s borders. SMCRA\nvests the Secretary with an ongoing obligation to ensure that state programs comport with the\nfederal Act’s minimum requirements. 30 U.S.C. § 1253(a). In accordance with that oversight\nauthority, whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that a person is in violation of a SMCRA\npermit condition, and the state authority fails to take action to remedy the suspected violation,\nthe Secretary must inspect the surface mining operation. 30 U.S.C. § 1271(a). If the Secretary’s\ninspection confirms that a violation is occurring that creates an imminent harm to the health or\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 4\n\n\nsafety of the public or the environment, it must issue a cessation order commanding the\nimmediate termination of all surface mining activities. Id. § 1271(a)(2); 30 C.F.R.\n§ 843.11(a)(1). Mining without a valid permit is a per se imminent harm that automatically\ntriggers the issuance of a cessation order. 30 C.F.R. § 843.11(a)(2).\n\n Whether Elkhorn has a valid SMCRA-compliant permit is the question at the heart of this\ncase. The answer turns on whether Elkhorn has met SMCRA’s minimum requirements for\nestablishing a right to surface mine on Tract 46, a severed estate. For its permit to be valid,\nElkhorn must have submitted documents to the Kentucky Cabinet that satisfied one of three\navenues for establishing a right to surface mine. 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6); 30 C.F.R.\n§ 778.15(b)(3). Those options are:\n\n (A) the written consent of the surface owner to the extraction of coal by surface\n mining methods; or\n (B) a conveyance that expressly grants or reserves the right to extract the coal by\n surface mining methods; or\n (C) if the conveyance does not expressly grant the right to extract coal by surface\n mining methods, the surface-subsurface legal relationship shall be determined in\n accordance with State law . . . .\n\n30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6).1 For ease of reference, we refer to these three statutory provisions as\nsubsections (A), (B), and (C).\n\n Because Elkhorn’s current amended permit was issued pursuant to subsection (C), this\ncase turns on the requirements of that subsection. However, prior litigation concerning\nElkhorn’s permit hinged on the meaning of subsection (A). Because that litigation has some\nrelevance to this one, we discuss it briefly below.\n\n B. Factual and Procedural Background\n\n The Kentucky Cabinet initially approved Elkhorn’s permit under subsection (A).\nBecause none of the severance conveyances connected to Tract 46 expressly grant a right to\n\n 1Kentucky’s SMCRA regulatory analogue contains its own provision that is “substantively identical” to the\nfederal act, 59 Fed. Reg. 27235, 27236 (May 26, 1994) (Director’s Finding #4), but it clarifies what documentation\nan applicant must submit to establish its right to surface mine under each alternative method. See 405 Ky. Admin.\nRegs. 8:030 § 4(2) (2014).\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 5\n\n\nsurface mine, Elkhorn relied on a 2013 right of entry agreement between it and Pike Letcher to\nestablish that right. The Cabinet believed that the right of entry agreement sufficiently\ndocumented that Elkhorn had the “consent of the surface owner” to surface mine, as required by\nsubsection (A). So the Cabinet approved Elkhorn’s permit, and Elkhorn began surface mining in\nApril 2014.\n\n That approval spawned the first federal litigation over Elkhorn’s permit. Shortly after\nElkhorn commenced mining, Johnson filed a “citizen suit” in the Eastern District of Kentucky,\nunder a SMCRA provision that authorizes private parties to bring suit against the Secretary to\n“compel compliance” with the Act. 30 U.S.C. § 1270(a). Johnson alleged that Elkhorn’s permit\nwas invalid under SMCRA and thus moved for an injunction ordering Elkhorn to cease mining\noperations. M.L. Johnson Family Props., LLC v. Jewell, 27 F. Supp. 3d 767, 773 (E.D. Ky.\n2014) (“Johnson I”), vacated as moot, No. 14-5867, Order, R. No. 29-2 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2014).\nThe district court agreed with Johnson. It held that the phrase “the surface owner” in subsection\n(A) includes “all surface owners” who own a parcel as tenants in common. Id. at 771. Since\nElkhorn had only the consent of Pike Letcher, and not Johnson, the court determined that the\npermit fell short of subsection (A)’s requisites. Therefore, the court ordered the Secretary to\nconduct an inspection of Elkhorn’s mining operations and enjoined Elkhorn from surface mining\nwhile the inspection was pending.2 Id.\n\n Following the district court’s order, the Secretary conducted an inspection. It found that\nElkhorn’s permit was invalid under subsection (A) and issued a cessation order prohibiting\nElkhorn from continuing to surface mine on Tract 46. Id.\n\n While Johnson I was pending and the Secretary was conducting its inspection, Elkhorn\nwas revising its permit application. Through its revisions, Elkhorn hoped to establish its right to\nsurface mine under subsection (C), which directs “the regulatory authority” to determine “the\nsurface-subsurface legal relationship . . . in accordance with State law.” 30 U.S.C.\n§ 1260(b)(6)(C). Elkhorn resubmitted its right of entry agreement with Pike Letcher along with\n\n 2Elkhorn appealed Johnson I, but this court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the injunction. M.L.\nJohnson Family Props. v. Premier Elkhorn Coal Co., No. 14-5867, Order, R. 29 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2014). The court\ntook “no position on the merits” of the appeal. Id. at 3. The case remains pending in the district court.\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 6\n\n\nits application. And it directed the Kentucky Cabinet to a Kentucky court of appeals decision,\nJohnson v. Envtl. & Pub. Protection Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d 216, 219–20 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009)\n(“Johnson v. Cabinet”). In that case, the court held that Kentucky’s cotenancy laws allowed one\nsurface tenant to surface mine over its cotenants’ objections. Id. Applying that law, the Cabinet\nconcluded that Elkhorn’s right of entry agreement with Pike Letcher, although “from less than all\nco-owners” of Tract 46, was “sufficient to satisfy the . . . requirements to obtain a mining\npermit” in accordance with state law. AR 0617. The Cabinet thus issued Elkhorn a new permit\nto surface mine under subsection (C).\n\n The Secretary then inspected Elkhorn’s revised permit and confirmed that the permit\ncomplied with subsection (C). Consequently, it terminated the cessation order prohibiting\nElkhorn from surface mining.\n\n That termination decision spawned the federal litigation now before us. Johnson\nadministratively challenged the Secretary’s termination decision in the Hearings Division of the\nDepartment of the Interior’s Office of Hearings and Appeals. On October 30, 2015, an ALJ\nupheld the Secretary’s termination decision, concluding that Elkhorn’s permit comported with\nsubsection (C)’s requirements. Johnson then administratively appealed the ALJ’s decision to the\nInterior Board of Land Appeals of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (“Appeals Board”).\nWhile that appeal was still pending, Johnson also sought review of the ALJ’s decision in federal\ncourt. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky held that the ALJ’s\ndecision was not arbitrary or capricious or in violation of law and granted summary judgment in\nfavor of the Secretary, as well as Elkhorn, who had intervened as a defendant in the federal suit.\n\n Johnson now appeals.\n\n II.\n\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo but review the\nagency’s decision under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard mandated by SMCRA and the\nAdministrative Procedure Act (APA). Coal. for Gov’t Procurement v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc.,\n365 F.3d 435, 457 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2) (“Any\naction subject to judicial review under this subsection shall be affirmed unless the court\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 7\n\n\nconcludes that such action is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law.”). We\nlook only to “the record made before the Secretary,” and treat the Secretary’s factual findings as\nconclusive “if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.” 30\nU.S.C. § 1276(b); see also Appolo Fuels, Inc. v. Babbitt, 270 F.3d 333, 337 (6th Cir. 2001).\nQuestions of law, however, are considered de novo, giving deference to the agency only for its\nreasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute it is charged with administering. R/T 182, LLC\nv. FAA, 519 F.3d 307, 309 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); Am. Nuclear Res., Inc. v. U.S.\nDep’t of Labor, 134 F.3d 1292, 1294 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res.\nDef. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).\n\n III.\n\n Before moving to the merits of Johnson’s arguments, we pause to address an initial\nhurdle that Johnson must clear to have its case heard in federal court: administrative exhaustion.\nAlthough we have jurisdiction under 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2) to review the Secretary’s\ntermination of the cessation order, we still must ensure that Johnson exhausted its claims at the\nadministrative level before we consider them. S. Ohio Coal Co. v. Office of Surface Mining,\nReclamation & Enf’t, Dep’t of Interior, 20 F.3d 1418, 1425 (1994); Shawnee Coal Co. v. Andrus,\n661 F.2d 1083, 1090–91 (6th Cir. 1981). That’s because, as we have previously held, “SMCRA\nunambiguously requires resort to the prescribed administrative review process before” a party\nmay seek judicial review. S. Ohio Coal Co., 20 F.3d at 1425.\n\n The exhaustion inquiry in this case centers on whether the ALJ decision before us is a\nfinal decision. A claim is administratively exhausted if it results in a “final decision . . . subject\nto judicial review.” Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 1991). Elkhorn argues that\nthe ALJ decision does not fit that bill because, under SMCRA implementing regulations, only a\ndecision rendered by the Appeals Board, and not an ALJ, constitutes a final decision. Johnson\nacknowledges that, normally, only decisions by the Appeals Board are final but says that an\nexception to that rule makes the ALJ decision in this case a final one. We agree with Johnson.\n\n Congress may define what constitutes a final decision. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S.\n749, 766–77 (1975). Or, it may delegate that task to the agency itself. Id. Congress does not\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 8\n\n\ndefine finality in the text of SMCRA, so the Secretary fleshes out its meaning through\nregulations. Those regulations provide a general finality definition that makes only decisions of\nthe Appeals Board “final . . . agency action subject to judicial review . . . .” 43 C.F.R. § 4.21(c),\n(d). But the regulations also contain a narrow carve-out to that general rule. The carve-out is\ntriggered if, simultaneous to filing an appeal with the Appeals Board, the litigant petitions for a\nstay of the ALJ decision until the appeal is resolved. Id. § 4.21(a)(2). In that case, if the Appeals\nBoard denies or “fails to act on the petition” to stay “within 45 calendar days of the” appeal\ndeadline, then the ALJ decision becomes a “final” decision “subject to judicial review.” Id.\n§ 4.21(a)(3), (b)(4), (c).\n\n That carve-out has straightforward application here. Johnson timely appealed the ALJ’s\nruling to the Appeals Board and simultaneously asked the Board to stay the ALJ’s ruling until it\nresolved the appeal. Forty-five days after Johnson’s appeal deadline, the Appeals Board still had\nnot answered Elkhorn’s request for a stay. At that point, the ALJ’s decision, even though\npending appeal before the agency, became “final,” according to 43 C.F.R. § 4.21(c).\n\n Although § 4.21(c) seems to have obvious application to this case, Elkhorn contends that\nit is the wrong place to look and urges the court to turn to § 4.1101(a) instead. That section vests\nthe Appeals Board with “authority to exercise the final decisionmaking power of the Secretary\nunder the act . . . .” 43 C.F.R. § 4.1101(a). Because only the Appeals Board possesses “final\ndecisionmaking power,” Elkhorn’s argument goes, only the Appeals Board, and not an ALJ, can\nissue a final decision subject to judicial review. But the fact that the Appeals Board possesses\nfinal decisionmaking power does not mean an ALJ may never issue a final decision. SMCRA\nregulations allow the Appeals Board to exercise its final decisionmaking power with discretion.\nIf the Appeals Board stays an ALJ decision pending appeal, then it assumes responsibility for\nissuing a final, judicially reviewable decision. On the other hand, according to § 4.21(c), if the\nAppeals Board denies or declines to act on a simultaneously filed stay petition within the\nprescribed forty-five-day window, then it has effectively “decided” that the ALJ opinion will be\nthe final, judicially reviewable decision. That is exactly what happened here.\n\n Even so, Elkhorn asserts that Shawnee and Southern Ohio expressly hold that only\ndecisions from the Appeals Board are final. Yet Elkhorn misrepresents the holdings of those\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 9\n\n\ncases. Shawnee and Southern Ohio simply state that SMCRA mandates exhaustion. See S. Ohio\nCoal Co., 20 F.3d at 1425; Shawnee, 661 F.2d at 1091. They do not say, however, when a\ndecision becomes final and SMCRA’s exhaustion requirements are met. But SMCRA\nregulations do. And they make clear that the ALJ’s decision in this case became final once the\nAppeals Board declined to act on Johnson’s stay petition within forty-five days of the appeal\ndeadline. 43 C.F.R. § 4.21(c). Johnson therefore exhausted its administrative remedies to the\nextent required by SMCRA.\n\n IV.\n\n Satisfied that Johnson has cleared this exhaustion hurdle, we move to the merits of its\nclaims against Elkhorn. Johnson says the ALJ’s affirmance of the Secretary’s termination of the\ncessation order was arbitrary, capricious, or inconsistent with law for three main reasons: (1) the\nSecretary and the ALJ erroneously concluded that subsection (C) allows the Kentucky Cabinet to\nissue surface mining permits in reliance on Kentucky’s cotenancy law3; (2) when the Kentucky\nCabinet issued Elkhorn’s revised permit over Johnson’s objections it unlawfully adjudicated a\n“property rights dispute” in violation of 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6)(C); and (3) the Kentucky\nCabinet should have withheld Elkhorn’s permit under 30 U.S.C. § 1257(b)(9), because Elkhorn\nfailed to disclose on its revised application the existence of Johnson’s still-pending lawsuit,\nJohnson I. We address each argument in turn.\n\n A.\n\n The Secretary terminated its cessation order after concluding that Elkhorn’s amended\npermit complied with the statutory requirements set out in subsection (C). And the ALJ upheld\nthat decision after determining that subsection (C) allows a regulatory authority to turn to any\nstate law to assess whether a permit applicant has submitted documents demonstrating it has a\n\n 3Johnson also argues that Kentucky’s regulatory analogue to subsection (C), 405 Ky. Admin. Regs. 8:030\n§ 4(2)(c), likewise prohibits reliance on Kentucky’s cotenancy law. But the Kentucky regulation is not relevant to\nour review of the Secretary’s decision to terminate the cessation order. The Secretary’s decision was based on the\nconclusion that Elkhorn’s permit complied with SMCRA’s permitting requirements. This case, therefore, deals only\nwith the Secretary’s interpretation of SMCRA and not the Kentucky regulation. Johnson could have challenged the\nCabinet’s permitting decision as inconsistent with Kentucky’s regulations. AR 0134; see Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.\n§ 350.0301(1). It chose to challenge the Secretary’s decision instead. The Secretary’s decision, then, is the only\ndecision we review.\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 10\n\n\nright to surface mine. Under that reading of the provision, the ALJ explained, the Cabinet was\npermitted to rely on Kentucky’s law of cotenancy to approve Elkhorn’s permit. Johnson argues\nthat subsection (C) is narrower, permitting the Cabinet to consider only state-law rules of\nconstruction for interpreting severance conveyances that do not expressly grant a right to surface\nmine.4\n\n We agree with the Secretary that subsection (C) permits the Cabinet to rely on any state\nlaw in making its permitting decision. Therefore, the ALJ’s application of Kentucky cotenancy\nlaw, instead of the state’s rules of construction for vague severance deeds, to uphold the issuance\nof Elkhorn’s permit and the Secretary’s termination of the cessation order was not arbitrary,\ncapricious, or contrary to law.\n\n 1. Subsection (C)\n Our interpretation of subsection (C) begins and ends with the provision’s text. Robinson\nv. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997). Subsection (C) states:\n\n If the conveyance does not expressly grant the right to extract coal by surface\n mining methods, the surface-subsurface legal relationship shall be determined in\n accordance with State law . . . .\n\n30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6)(C). On its face, the text does not limit the source of state law that a\nregulatory authority may consult to make a permitting decision. It simply instructs the\nregulatory authority to determine the surface-subsurface legal relationship of an estate “in\naccordance with State law.” Read naturally, the unmodified phrase “State law” embraces the use\nof any state law. Cf. Levin v. Miss. River Fuel Corp., 386 U.S. 162, 168 (1967) (“In using the\nlanguage ‘required under applicable State law,’ § 5(11) [of the Interstate Commerce Act]\nembraced all state law . . . .”). That includes the full range of a state’s “legislation, judicial\nprecedents, and accepted legal principles,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1015 (10th ed. 2014), not\nonly state-law rules for interpreting severance conveyances.\n\n 4The specific rule of construction that Johnson believes applies here comes from the Broad Form Deed\nAmendment to Kentucky’s Constitution. That amendment provides that severance deeds that do not expressly grant\na right to surface mine must be interpreted to allow “coal extraction by only the . . . methods . . . commonly known\nto be in use . . . at the time the instrument was executed.” Johnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d at 221 (quoting Ky.\nConst. § 19(2)). Because surface mining was not commonly in use at the time the severance conveyances connected\nto Tract 46 were executed, they do not grant a right to surface mine under the Amendment.\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 11\n\n\n Johnson reads subsection (C) differently. Under Johnson’s interpretation, the provision\nunambiguously allows the regulatory authority to turn to state law only for determining the\nsurface-subsurface legal relationship as defined by the severance conveyance and not any other\ndocument. Arriving at that interpretation, however, requires several feats of textual acrobatics\nthat only contort a straightforward text.\n\n Johnson’s first maneuver misconstrues the relationship between subsection (C)’s two\nclauses. According to Johnson, the first clause announces a purpose that informs the meaning of\nthe second clause. And because the first clause references “the conveyance,” Johnson says that\nits purpose is to provide a method for interpreting a severance conveyance. That means, Johnson\ncontends, that the “surface-subsurface legal relationship” in the second clause is a legal\nrelationship that may only be defined by a severance conveyance—and, therefore, the only\nrelevant “State law” is that which helps the regulatory authority construe the severance\nconveyance.\n\n But that argument mischaracterizes the function of subsection (C)’s first clause. The\nclause is a classic conditional statement. As a conditional statement, rather than announcing the\npurpose of the entire subsection, it simply limits the subsection’s applicability. When, according\nto the conditional statement, does subsection (C) apply? Only “if the conveyance does not\nexpressly grant a right to surface mine.” And what does the regulatory authority do when that\ncondition is met? The remainder of subsection (C) tells us: the regulator determines “the\nsurface-subsurface legal relationship . . . in accordance with State law.” No portion of\nsubsection (C)’s text limits the realm of documents the regulatory authority may consult to make\nthat state-law determination. Thus, any document that state law deems relevant—whether the\nseverance conveyance, a right of entry lease, or otherwise—may inform the regulatory\nauthority’s permitting decision under subsection (C).\n\n Johnson’s second syntactical stunt attempts to rely on the canon of harmonious reading.\nSee FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (“A court\nmust . . . interpret the statute ‘as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme,’ and ‘fit, if\npossible, all parts into an harmonious whole.” (internal citations omitted)). Johnson posits that\nthe only way to read subsections (A), (B), and (C) harmoniously is to interpret subsection (C) as\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 12\n\n\nrequiring the application of state law to the severance conveyance. In support of that view,\nJohnson emphasizes that subsections (B) and (C) both mention a conveyance, whereas\nsubsection (A) only discusses consent. The way Johnson sees it, this difference in language\nindicates that Congress intended to provide only two methods of establishing a right to surface\nmine: by a conveyance or by consent. The only difference between subsections (B) and (C),\nJohnson contends, is that the latter “merely specifies the choice of law when interpreting rights\nthat are not explicit in the [conveyance].” Appellant Br. 31.\n\n Reading the subsections harmoniously, however, does not mandate such a narrow\ninterpretation of subsection (C). An equally harmonious interpretation is that when an applicant\nhas neither the consent of all surface owners, as allowed under subsection (A), nor an express\nconveyance, as allowed under subsection (B), it may establish a right to surface mine through\nany other method “in accordance with State law” under subsection (C). That interpretation does\nnot create any inconsistencies between the three subsections.\n\n Finally, Johnson urges that reading subsection (C) too broadly renders subsection (A)\nsuperfluous. That is, if subsection (C) allows resort to Kentucky cotenancy law, which\nauthorizes surface mining based on the consent of fewer than all surface owners, then subsection\n(A)’s complete-consent requirement no longer plays any role whatsoever in a state’s permitting\ndeterminations. That argument also fails to carry the day. Even Johnson acknowledges that not\nevery state allows one tenant to surface mine over a cotenant’s objections. Appellant Br. 34. It\nmay be true that, as a practical matter, subsection (A) plays a diminished role in Kentucky. But\nwe do not read nationally applicable statutes through a single-state lens.\n\n In fact, SMCRA’s national application in a domain traditionally controlled by the states is\njust one more reason to interpret subsection (C) broadly, allowing consideration of any state law\nto determine whether the surface-subsurface legal relationship includes a right to surface mine.\nBecause “‘property’ and ‘interests in property’ are creatures of state law,” Barnhill v. Johnson,\n503 U.S. 393, 398 (1992), we should expect a “‘clear and manifest’ statement from Congress”\nthat it intended to preempt certain state property laws governing the right to surface mine before\ninterpreting SMCRA as doing so, Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 738 (2006) (citation\nomitted). There is no “clear and manifest” statement of such intent in this case. To be sure, as\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 13\n\n\nElkhorn points out, SMCRA’s “cooperative federalism” framework is designed to impose on\nstates more restrictive regulations governing the practice of surface mining, in part to protect the\nrights of landowners. See 30 U.S.C. § 1202(b) (listing as another purpose “assur[ing] that the\nright of surface landowners . . . are fully protected from [surface mining] operations”). But that\nis just one purpose the Act furthers. The statute lists twelve more, including “encourag[ing] the\nfull utilization of coal resources,” id. § 1202(k), and assuring “that the coal supply essential to\nthe Nation’s energy requirements . . . is provided,” id. § 1202(f). That Congress also listed\nprotecting landowners among those purposes does not prove that it unequivocally intended to\noverride some state property laws—but not others—governing rights of entry. Cf. Crow Tribe of\nIndians v. Peters, 835 F. Supp. 2d 985, 992 (D. Mont. 2011) (“[B]oth SMCRA and its\nimplementing regulations make clear that nothing in the surface owner protections are to be\nconstrued as increasing or diminishing any property rights.”).\n\n The text of subsection (C), then, is quite clear: when a conveyance does not expressly\ngrant the right to surface mine, the regulatory authority may rely on any state law to determine\nwhether the documents describing the surface-subsurface legal relationship of the severed estate\ngrant such a right. Because subsection (C) is plain and unambiguous, our analysis ends where it\nbegan: with the statutory text. Robins, 519 U.S. at 340. We need not consider Johnson’s lengthy\ncitations to conflicting legislative history. Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 147–48 (1994)\n(“[W]e do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear.”). And we need\nnot defer to the Secretary’s own interpretation of the text (although we note that doing so in this\ncase would yield the same result). Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844 (holding that when a statute is\nambiguous, the court “may not substitute its own construction . . . for a reasonable interpretation\nmade by the . . . agency”).\n\n 2. The ALJ’s Decision\n\n The ALJ, arriving at the same interpretation we do, found Kentucky’s cotenancy law\napplicable to Elkhorn’s permit and concluded that Elkhorn’s permit was issued in accordance\nwith cotenancy law outlined by a Kentucky appellate case, Johnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d 216\n(Ky. Ct. App. 2009). Therefore, the ALJ held that Elkhorn’s revised permit was valid under\nsubsection (C) and upheld the Secretary’s decision to terminate the cessation order. The ALJ’s\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 14\n\n\napplication of the cotenancy law outlined by Johnson v. Cabinet was not arbitrary, capricious, or\ncontrary to law. See 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2).\n\n In Johnson v. Cabinet, the Kentucky court of appeals ruled that “a cotenant ha[s] the right\nto begin strip mining operations on . . . property despite objections from another cotenant.”\nJohnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d at 220. That holding derived from the common law principle\nthat “[a] cotenant may use and enjoy a common estate in real property in the same manner as if\nhe or she were the sole owner.” Id. at 219 (citing York v. Warren Oil & Gas Co., 229 S.W. 114\n(Ky. 1921)). Applying that principle, Johnson v. Cabinet determined that a right of entry lease\nexecuted between only one surface tenant and a coal mining company demonstrated that the coal\ncompany had a right to surface mine even over other surface tenants’ objections. Id. at 220.\n\n The ALJ was not wrong to apply that precedent to this case. Here, just like the coal\ncompany in Johnson v. Cabinet, Elkhorn established its right to enter and surface mine by\nrelying on a right of entry agreement with one of the plot’s surface owners, Pike Letcher. And\nhere, just as in Johnson v. Cabinet, some surface owners objected to surface mining. There is no\nmeaningful difference between Johnson v. Cabinet and this case that would make Kentucky’s\nlaw of cotenancy applicable there but not here.\n\n Johnson’s counterargument is unconvincing. Johnson argues that Kentucky’s law of\ncotenancy only “defines the surface-surface legal relationship rather than the surface-subsurface\nlegal relationship, as mandated by [subsection (C)].” Appellant Br. 23. When it comes to the\nsurface-subsurface legal relationship, Johnson again asserts, only the severance conveyance\ncontrols—and that means that the only relevant state law is that which guides the regulatory\nauthority’s interpretation of the severance conveyance. But Johnson v. Cabinet considered and\nexpressly rejected the same argument by the nonconsenting cotenants there. The court explained\nthat, in Kentucky, the law “does not make a distinction between surface and mineral interests\nwhen construing the mutual rights, duties and liabilities of cotenants”—the general rules of\ncotenancy “carr[y] over into the field of minerals, which are simply part of the land.”\n289 S.W.3d at 220–21 (discussing cases). Moreover, Kentucky’s rules regarding the\ninterpretation of severance conveyances, Johnson v. Cabinet explained, “did not change in any\nfundamental way the long-standing law of cotenancy.” Id. at 221 (citation omitted). The court\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 15\n\n\nconcluded that when an applicant to surface mine based its right to do so on a surface lease\nagreement, and not a severance conveyance, Kentucky cotenancy law applied. Elkhorn itself\nbased its right to surface mine on its surface entry agreement with Pike Letcher rather than any\nseverance conveyance. Therefore, according to Johnson v. Cabinet, the State’s cotenancy laws\ngovern. Johnson thus fails to show that the ALJ’s application of Kentucky cotenancy law in its\nreview of the Secretary’s termination decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.\n\n B.\n\n SMCRA places an important limitation on a regulatory authority’s power: in the course\nof reviewing permit applications, the regulatory authority may not “adjudicate property rights\ndisputes.” 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6)(C). Johnson asserts that the Cabinet and the Secretary\nviolated this restriction by approving Elkhorn’s revised permit application in spite of Johnson’s\nobjections to Elkhorn’s right to surface mine. According to Johnson, because of its ongoing\nobjection to Elkhorn’s right, SMCRA implicitly required Elkhorn to obtain a final, unappealable\nstate court judgment affirming that it had a right to surface mine under state law before obtaining\na permit. The ALJ and district court both rejected that argument. So do we.\n\n SMCRA’s prohibition against adjudicating a property rights dispute appears at the end of\nits list of potential ways an applicant may establish a right to surface mine on a severed estate.\nThe end of that list begins with a (now-familiar) command and ends with the important property-\nrights-dispute caveat. It reads: “[I]f the conveyance does not expressly grant the right to extract\ncoal by surface mining methods, the surface-subsurface legal relationship shall be determined in\naccordance with State law: Provided, That nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize\nthe regulatory authority to adjudicate property rights disputes.” 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6)(C)\n(underline added).\n\n SMCRA does not define what constitutes “property rights disputes.” Johnson argues that\nthe phrase covers any disagreement over an applicant’s right to surface mine, including\nJohnson’s disagreement over the range of applicable state law under subsection (C). But that\ninterpretation of the phrase is too broad. The restriction against adjudicating property rights\ndisputes operates as an exception from the general mandate that the regulatory authority\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 16\n\n\ndetermine whether a permit applicant has established that it has a right to surface mine. See\n64 Fed. Reg. 70766, 70807–08 (Dec. 17, 1999) (adopting the reasoning from two Eastern\nDistrict of Kentucky cases holding that the regulatory authority has an obligation to\n“administratively ascertain that a prima facie showing of the right to surface mine under state\nlaw has been properly documented by the applicant” (citations omitted)). As an exception to that\ngeneral mandate, it should be construed narrowly. Comm’r v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989)\n(“[W]e usually read [an] exception narrowly in order to preserve the primary operation of the\nprovision.”).\n\n A few court cases and administrative decisions provide an appropriately narrow\ndescription of the “property rights disputes” encompassed by SMCRA. Those cases conclude\nthat such disputes challenge the validity or interpretation of a conveyance, the location of a\nparcel’s boundary lines, allegations of waste or ouster, or other disagreements related to\nownership over the land. See Akers v. Baldwin, No. 84-88, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law\nand Order at 12 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 28, 1985), R. 64-3, PID 745 (property rights disputes over which\nthe Cabinet lacks jurisdiction are those dealing with “whether any given conveyance had been\nobtained by fraud, whether the consent obtained was signed by the proper heirs to a particular\ntract of land, whether there was a boundary line or other dispute concerning the realty’s\ndescription, and other such individualized matters”); Akers v. Bradley, No. 84-88, Opinion,\nOrder and Judgment 2 (E.D. Ky. June 20, 1988), R. 64-6, PID 752 (reiterating the definition in\nBaldwin); Foster E. Sword, 138 IBLA 74, 81 (Feb. 3, 1997) (describing a disagreement over the\nlocation of a property boundary line as “a property title or rights dispute[]” that the Cabinet\ncannot resolve); Paul F. Kuhn, 120 IBLA 1, 9 (July 3, 1991) (concluding that a dispute over\nproper surveying reference points for demarcating property boundary lines is “clearly a property\ndispute” outside the Cabinet’s jurisdiction); Johnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d at 221–22 (listing\nlawsuits alleging ouster or waste among the types of “property rights” disputes over which the\nKentucky Cabinet has no jurisdiction (citations omitted)); Dep’t for Nat. Res. & Env’t Prot. v.\nStearns Coal & Lumber Co., 563 S.W.2d 471, 473 & n.4 (Ky. 1978) (emphasizing that disputes\nover the proper interpretation of a deed are proper for Kentucky state courts and not for the\nCabinet to resolve).\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 17\n\n\n Johnson’s objection to Elkhorn’s permit does not fit within that narrow category of\nproperty rights disputes. Johnson does not contest the validity of any deed connected to Tract 46\nor the right of entry agreement between Pike Letcher and Elkhorn. Instead, Johnson contests the\nCabinet’s application of settled Kentucky cotenancy law to Elkhorn’s permit and the Secretary’s\naffirmance that the Cabinet’s application of that law was consistent with the requirements of\nsubsection (C). Moreover, Johnson actually concedes that under Kentucky cotenancy law\nElkhorn’s right of entry agreement gives it a right to surface mine. Appellant Br. 20.\nNonetheless, Johnson argues that the text of subsection (C) makes cotenancy law irrelevant.\nThat is a dispute over statutory interpretation, not property rights.\n\n What is more, Johnson’s assertion that the Cabinet must withhold a permit until every\npossible dispute between landowners is resolved by a final, unappealable state court judgment is\nunsupported (as Johnson acknowledges) by SMCRA’s express requirements. The cases Johnson\ncites do not support that position either—unlike this one, those cases dealt with bona fide\nproperty rights disputes. In the first case, the applicant’s right to surface mine was subject to a\ndispute over the questionable validity of the applicant’s surface lease. Ky. S. Coal Corp. v. Ky.\nEnergy & Env’t. Cabinet (“KSCC”), 396 S.W.3d 804, 805–07 (Ky. 2013) (finding that a bona\nfide property rights dispute existed when the applicant’s right of entry agreement expired while\nits application was pending, and it was unclear how a prior state court judgment affected the\nexpiration of the mining rights contained in the lease). In the second case, the right to surface\nmine hinged on the proper interpretation of an ambiguous deed. Marion Taylor, 125 IBLA 271\n(Feb. 14, 1993), vacated, Coal-Mac, Inc. v. Babbitt, Case No. 7:93-cv-00117-JMH, R. 48, at 272\n(E.D. Ky. Aug. 9, 1995) (concluding that a bona fide property rights dispute existed over\nwhether a deed’s grant of “all mining rights” to the mineral owner included the right to surface\nmine). Here, however, there is no quarrel over the validity or interpretation of the right of entry\nagreement between Elkhorn and Pike Letcher. Consequently, neither KSCC nor Marion help\nJohnson’s efforts to fit this case within the category of “property rights disputes” that must be\nresolved in state court before the regulatory authority may issue a permit to surface mine.\n\n Finally, it is worth noting the types of property rights claims Johnson could have raised in\nthe appropriate tribunal but did not. Johnson could have asserted in state proceedings that\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 18\n\n\nJohnson v. Cabinet was incorrectly decided, but it declined to do so. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.\n§ 350.0301(1). Johnson likewise refrained from initiating a state-court action alleging waste,\nseeking a partition, or pursuing other forms of relief from Elkhorn’s surface mining activities.\nSee Johnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d at 221–22; Kelley v. Kelley, No. 2010-CA-000831-MR,\n2011 WL 6412079, at *1 (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2011). Those actions would fall within the\nrealm of property rights disputes that the Cabinet and the Secretary have no authority to resolve.\nJohnson’s dispute over the proper interpretation of SMCRA does not.\n\n For all these reasons, it was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for the ALJ to\nconclude that neither the Cabinet nor the Secretary adjudicated a property rights dispute when\nthey approved Elkhorn’s revised permit and terminated the cessation order, respectively.\n\n C.\n\n Johnson’s final claim has to do with one of SMCRA’s disclosure requirements. Every\napplicant for a permit to surface mine must inform the regulatory authority whether its “legal\nright to enter and commence surface mining operations . . . is the subject of pending litigation.”\n30 U.S.C. § 1257(b)(9). Johnson says Elkhorn violated that disclosure rule because it omitted\nthe pending Johnson I suit from its revised application for a permit. In its revised application,\nJohnson submitted a standard form that asks the applicant whether “any rights to enter and mine\nthe area, as claimed by the applicant, [are] subject to any pending litigation.” AR 0825-1642.\nJohnson answered, “N/A.” Id. Of course, at the time Elkhorn submitted its revised application,\nthe Johnson I suit was still (indeed, is still) pending in federal court. So, Johnson asserts,\nElkhorn should have listed the suit on its application, and its failure to do so made the application\ninaccurate and incomplete. Therefore, Johnson contends, the Cabinet could not have lawfully\nissued Elkhorn’s permit, because SMCRA allows it to issue a permit only upon finding that “the\npermit application is accurate and complete . . . .” Id. § 1260(b)(1). We are unconvinced.\n\n To start, it is doubtful that the Johnson I litigation is the kind of “pending litigation” that\nis subject to SMCRA’s disclosure requirements. The district court concluded, albeit without\nexplanation, that the purpose behind SMCRA’s disclosure rule is to keep the Cabinet from\nunlawfully adjudicating a property rights dispute. The parties (including Johnson) seem to\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 19\n\n\nassume the correctness of that proposition, although they likewise fail to cite any supporting\nauthority. If that really is its purpose, then Elkhorn had no duty to disclose the pending lawsuit\non its application, because the lawsuit is not a property rights dispute.\n\n Yet even if Elkhorn was required to disclose the lawsuit on the application, its failure to\ndo so was harmless error. Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d 623, 637 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[T]his court\napplies a harmless-error rule to APA cases, such that a mistake that has no bearing on the\nultimate decision or causes no prejudice shall not be the basis for reversing an agency’s\ndetermination.” (citation omitted)); see also 5 U.S.C. § 706 (stating that judicial review of\nagency action shall take “due account . . . of the rule of prejudicial error”). That is because all\nparties, including the Cabinet and the Secretary, were aware of the ongoing litigation in Johnson\nI. The Cabinet’s actual knowledge means that it had the opportunity to withhold Elkhorn’s\npermit if it believed the suit’s existence undermined Elkhorn’s eligibility for a permit to surface\nmine. And the Secretary could have refused to terminate the cessation order if it concluded the\nCabinet issued Elkhorn’s permit in violation of SMCRA’s disclosure provision. Accordingly,\neven assuming Elkhorn should have indicated on its revised application that Johnson I remained\npending, its failure to do so was harmless error and therefore cannot justify undoing the ALJ’s\ndecision.\n\n V.\n\n Finally, the Kentucky Cabinet, acting as Amicus Curiae, raises a host of additional\narguments that it says go to this court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case. In fact, none of\nthe Cabinet’s arguments raise jurisdictional concerns. Briefly, the Cabinet first argues that the\ncourt has no authority to review the Secretary’s decision to terminate the cessation order or to\ncompel the Secretary to re-issue the order. But SMCRA allows for judicial review of any of the\nSecretary’s orders or decisions, including decisions concerning the issuance, modification, or\ntermination of cessation orders. 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2); id § 1275. Hence, the court does have\njurisdiction to review the termination decision here. The Cabinet also asserts that Johnson’s\nappeal amounts to an improper collateral attack on Kentucky’s permitting decision and, by\nextension, the State’s SMCRA-implementing regulations. But Johnson does not ask the court to\nreview the Cabinet’s decision to issue the permit pursuant to its own regulations; rather, it asks\n\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 20\n\n\nus to review the Secretary’s determination that the permit complied with SMCRA. For that\nreason, we address SMCRA’s statutory requirements only, and leave any differences in the\nKentucky permitting requirements for another court on another day. Finally, the Cabinet takes\nissue with the Secretary’s issuance of the cessation order in the first instance, arguing that in\nissuing it the Secretary did not comply with SMCRA’s procedural requisites. Whatever the\nmerits of that argument, it has no bearing on jurisdiction. And because it was not “raised below”\nor “advanced in this court by any party,” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 721\n(2014), we decline to address it.\n\n VI.\n\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: M.L. JOHNSON FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David L. BERNHARDT, Secretary of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee, Premier Elkhorn Coal LLC, Intervenor-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-15\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0091p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n M.L. JOHNSON FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. > No. 18-5520\\n │\\n │\\n DAVID L. BERNHARDT, Secretary of the Interior, │\\n Defendant-Appellee, │\\n │\\n PREMIER ELKHORN COAL LLC, │\\n │\\n Intervenor-Appellee.\\n │\\n │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville.\\n No. 7:16-cv-00006—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: March 19, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 15, 2019\\n\\n Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Mary Varson Cromer, APPALACHIAN CITIZENS’ LAW CENTER, Whitesburg,\\nKentucky, for Appellant. Corinne Snow, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,\\nWashington, D.C., for Federal Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mary Varson Cromer, APPALACHIAN\\nCITIZENS’ LAW CENTER, Whitesburg, Kentucky, Joe F. Childers, JOE F. CHILDERS &\\nASSOCIATES, Lexington, Kentucky, Walton D. Morris, Jr., MORRIS LAW OFFICE, P.C.,\\nCharlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Eric Grant, J. David Gunter II, Dustin J. Maghamfar,\\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Federal Appellee.\\nJohn C. Martin, HOLLAND & HART LLP, Washington, D.C., Thomas C. Means, CROWELL\\n& MORING LLP, Washington, D.C., Charles J. Baird, BAIRD & BAIRD, PSC, Pikeville,\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nKentucky, for Intervenor Appellee. Samuel J. Short, J. Michael West, KENTUCKY ENERGY\\nAND ENVIRONMENT CABINET, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Amicus Curiae.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. How to use a large plot of land known as “Tract 46” in\\nPike County, Kentucky has been a point of contention between the plot’s joint owners for quite\\nsome time. The plot’s surface and mineral estates have been severed for a century. Today, the\\nPike Letcher Land Company and Johnson LLC each own the surface estate as tenants in\\ncommon. Pike Letcher also owns the entirety of the coal below. It wants to mine for the coal.\\nBut Pike Letcher and Johnson don’t see eye to eye on how Pike Letcher may use the surface\\nestate to pursue its planned mining activities.\\n\\n Pike Letcher wants to use the surface to extract the coal using surface mining methods.\\nTo that end, in 2013, Pike Letcher granted Premier Elkhorn Coal LLC, its affiliate, a right to\\nenter the land and commence surface mining. But Johnson objects to surface mining.\\nNonetheless, despite Johnson’s protestations, the State of Kentucky granted Elkhorn a surface\\nmining permit, and Elkhorn commenced operations in April 2014.\\n\\n Johnson has been challenging the validity of Elkhorn’s permit ever since—and with some\\nsuccess. In 2014, as the result of a lawsuit in federal court, the Secretary of the Interior\\ndetermined that Elkhorn’s permit violated federal law. Elkhorn then remedied the deficiencies in\\nits first permit, and Kentucky issued it an amended permit later the same year. On review, the\\nSecretary confirmed that, this time, Elkhorn’s permit complied with federal law. Johnson sued\\nagain. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) upheld the Secretary’s determination. The United\\nStates District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky affirmed. Johnson now appeals. For\\nthe following reasons, we affirm.\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n I.\\n\\n A. Legal Background\\n\\n Coal companies that hope to obtain a permit to surface mine must comply with certain\\nrequirements set out by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).\\nSMCRA was designed to “strike a balance between the nation’s interests in protecting the\\nenvironment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining and in assuring the coal supply\\nessential to the nation’s energy requirements.” Bragg v. W. Va. Coal Ass’n, 248 F.3d 275, 288\\n(4th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). It accomplishes these twin aims through a system that has\\nbeen described as “cooperative federalism.” Id.; Kentuckians for the Commonwealth v. U.S.\\nArmy Corps of Eng’rs., 746 F.3d 698, 701–02 (6th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Under its\\ncooperative framework, SMCRA sets national minimum requirements for surface mining but\\ninvites states to assume responsibility for enforcing them. Kentuckians for the Commonwealth,\\n746 F.3d at 701–02. States that wish to assume that responsibility must obtain approval from the\\nSecretary by creating their own regulatory program that is “capab[le] of carrying out” SMCRA’s\\nprovisions. 30 U.S.C. § 1253(a). Those states may even add to SMCRA’s minimum permitting\\nstandards, but they must not go below them. See id. Once the Secretary approves a state’s\\nprogram, the state assumes “exclusive jurisdiction” over surface mining activities on non-federal\\nlands within its borders. Id.; In re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litig., 653 F.2d 514,\\n519 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (en banc).\\n\\n The Secretary approved Kentucky’s regulatory program in 1982, and the Kentucky\\nEnergy and Environment Cabinet has administered the State’s program ever since. 30 C.F.R.\\n§ 917.10; see Ky. Rev. Stat. Ch. 350; 405 Ky. Admin. Regs. Ch. 1–30. But that did not end the\\nSecretary’s involvement with surface mining regulation within Kentucky’s borders. SMCRA\\nvests the Secretary with an ongoing obligation to ensure that state programs comport with the\\nfederal Act’s minimum requirements. 30 U.S.C. § 1253(a). In accordance with that oversight\\nauthority, whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that a person is in violation of a SMCRA\\npermit condition, and the state authority fails to take action to remedy the suspected violation,\\nthe Secretary must inspect the surface mining operation. 30 U.S.C. § 1271(a). If the Secretary’s\\ninspection confirms that a violation is occurring that creates an imminent harm to the health or\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nsafety of the public or the environment, it must issue a cessation order commanding the\\nimmediate termination of all surface mining activities. Id. § 1271(a)(2); 30 C.F.R.\\n§ 843.11(a)(1). Mining without a valid permit is a per se imminent harm that automatically\\ntriggers the issuance of a cessation order. 30 C.F.R. § 843.11(a)(2).\\n\\n Whether Elkhorn has a valid SMCRA-compliant permit is the question at the heart of this\\ncase. The answer turns on whether Elkhorn has met SMCRA’s minimum requirements for\\nestablishing a right to surface mine on Tract 46, a severed estate. For its permit to be valid,\\nElkhorn must have submitted documents to the Kentucky Cabinet that satisfied one of three\\navenues for establishing a right to surface mine. 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6); 30 C.F.R.\\n§ 778.15(b)(3). Those options are:\\n\\n (A) the written consent of the surface owner to the extraction of coal by surface\\n mining methods; or\\n (B) a conveyance that expressly grants or reserves the right to extract the coal by\\n surface mining methods; or\\n (C) if the conveyance does not expressly grant the right to extract coal by surface\\n mining methods, the surface-subsurface legal relationship shall be determined in\\n accordance with State law . . . .\\n\\n30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6).1 For ease of reference, we refer to these three statutory provisions as\\nsubsections (A), (B), and (C).\\n\\n Because Elkhorn’s current amended permit was issued pursuant to subsection (C), this\\ncase turns on the requirements of that subsection. However, prior litigation concerning\\nElkhorn’s permit hinged on the meaning of subsection (A). Because that litigation has some\\nrelevance to this one, we discuss it briefly below.\\n\\n B. Factual and Procedural Background\\n\\n The Kentucky Cabinet initially approved Elkhorn’s permit under subsection (A).\\nBecause none of the severance conveyances connected to Tract 46 expressly grant a right to\\n\\n 1Kentucky’s SMCRA regulatory analogue contains its own provision that is “substantively identical” to the\\nfederal act, 59 Fed. Reg. 27235, 27236 (May 26, 1994) (Director’s Finding #4), but it clarifies what documentation\\nan applicant must submit to establish its right to surface mine under each alternative method. See 405 Ky. Admin.\\nRegs. 8:030 § 4(2) (2014).\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nsurface mine, Elkhorn relied on a 2013 right of entry agreement between it and Pike Letcher to\\nestablish that right. The Cabinet believed that the right of entry agreement sufficiently\\ndocumented that Elkhorn had the “consent of the surface owner” to surface mine, as required by\\nsubsection (A). So the Cabinet approved Elkhorn’s permit, and Elkhorn began surface mining in\\nApril 2014.\\n\\n That approval spawned the first federal litigation over Elkhorn’s permit. Shortly after\\nElkhorn commenced mining, Johnson filed a “citizen suit” in the Eastern District of Kentucky,\\nunder a SMCRA provision that authorizes private parties to bring suit against the Secretary to\\n“compel compliance” with the Act. 30 U.S.C. § 1270(a). Johnson alleged that Elkhorn’s permit\\nwas invalid under SMCRA and thus moved for an injunction ordering Elkhorn to cease mining\\noperations. M.L. Johnson Family Props., LLC v. Jewell, 27 F. Supp. 3d 767, 773 (E.D. Ky.\\n2014) (“Johnson I”), vacated as moot, No. 14-5867, Order, R. No. 29-2 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2014).\\nThe district court agreed with Johnson. It held that the phrase “the surface owner” in subsection\\n(A) includes “all surface owners” who own a parcel as tenants in common. Id. at 771. Since\\nElkhorn had only the consent of Pike Letcher, and not Johnson, the court determined that the\\npermit fell short of subsection (A)’s requisites. Therefore, the court ordered the Secretary to\\nconduct an inspection of Elkhorn’s mining operations and enjoined Elkhorn from surface mining\\nwhile the inspection was pending.2 Id.\\n\\n Following the district court’s order, the Secretary conducted an inspection. It found that\\nElkhorn’s permit was invalid under subsection (A) and issued a cessation order prohibiting\\nElkhorn from continuing to surface mine on Tract 46. Id.\\n\\n While Johnson I was pending and the Secretary was conducting its inspection, Elkhorn\\nwas revising its permit application. Through its revisions, Elkhorn hoped to establish its right to\\nsurface mine under subsection (C), which directs “the regulatory authority” to determine “the\\nsurface-subsurface legal relationship . . . in accordance with State law.” 30 U.S.C.\\n§ 1260(b)(6)(C). Elkhorn resubmitted its right of entry agreement with Pike Letcher along with\\n\\n 2Elkhorn appealed Johnson I, but this court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the injunction. M.L.\\nJohnson Family Props. v. Premier Elkhorn Coal Co., No. 14-5867, Order, R. 29 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2014). The court\\ntook “no position on the merits” of the appeal. Id. at 3. The case remains pending in the district court.\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nits application. And it directed the Kentucky Cabinet to a Kentucky court of appeals decision,\\nJohnson v. Envtl. & Pub. Protection Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d 216, 219–20 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009)\\n(“Johnson v. Cabinet”). In that case, the court held that Kentucky’s cotenancy laws allowed one\\nsurface tenant to surface mine over its cotenants’ objections. Id. Applying that law, the Cabinet\\nconcluded that Elkhorn’s right of entry agreement with Pike Letcher, although “from less than all\\nco-owners” of Tract 46, was “sufficient to satisfy the . . . requirements to obtain a mining\\npermit” in accordance with state law. AR 0617. The Cabinet thus issued Elkhorn a new permit\\nto surface mine under subsection (C).\\n\\n The Secretary then inspected Elkhorn’s revised permit and confirmed that the permit\\ncomplied with subsection (C). Consequently, it terminated the cessation order prohibiting\\nElkhorn from surface mining.\\n\\n That termination decision spawned the federal litigation now before us. Johnson\\nadministratively challenged the Secretary’s termination decision in the Hearings Division of the\\nDepartment of the Interior’s Office of Hearings and Appeals. On October 30, 2015, an ALJ\\nupheld the Secretary’s termination decision, concluding that Elkhorn’s permit comported with\\nsubsection (C)’s requirements. Johnson then administratively appealed the ALJ’s decision to the\\nInterior Board of Land Appeals of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (“Appeals Board”).\\nWhile that appeal was still pending, Johnson also sought review of the ALJ’s decision in federal\\ncourt. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky held that the ALJ’s\\ndecision was not arbitrary or capricious or in violation of law and granted summary judgment in\\nfavor of the Secretary, as well as Elkhorn, who had intervened as a defendant in the federal suit.\\n\\n Johnson now appeals.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo but review the\\nagency’s decision under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard mandated by SMCRA and the\\nAdministrative Procedure Act (APA). Coal. for Gov’t Procurement v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc.,\\n365 F.3d 435, 457 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2) (“Any\\naction subject to judicial review under this subsection shall be affirmed unless the court\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nconcludes that such action is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law.”). We\\nlook only to “the record made before the Secretary,” and treat the Secretary’s factual findings as\\nconclusive “if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.” 30\\nU.S.C. § 1276(b); see also Appolo Fuels, Inc. v. Babbitt, 270 F.3d 333, 337 (6th Cir. 2001).\\nQuestions of law, however, are considered de novo, giving deference to the agency only for its\\nreasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute it is charged with administering. R/T 182, LLC\\nv. FAA, 519 F.3d 307, 309 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); Am. Nuclear Res., Inc. v. U.S.\\nDep’t of Labor, 134 F.3d 1292, 1294 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res.\\nDef. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Before moving to the merits of Johnson’s arguments, we pause to address an initial\\nhurdle that Johnson must clear to have its case heard in federal court: administrative exhaustion.\\nAlthough we have jurisdiction under 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2) to review the Secretary’s\\ntermination of the cessation order, we still must ensure that Johnson exhausted its claims at the\\nadministrative level before we consider them. S. Ohio Coal Co. v. Office of Surface Mining,\\nReclamation & Enf’t, Dep’t of Interior, 20 F.3d 1418, 1425 (1994); Shawnee Coal Co. v. Andrus,\\n661 F.2d 1083, 1090–91 (6th Cir. 1981). That’s because, as we have previously held, “SMCRA\\nunambiguously requires resort to the prescribed administrative review process before” a party\\nmay seek judicial review. S. Ohio Coal Co., 20 F.3d at 1425.\\n\\n The exhaustion inquiry in this case centers on whether the ALJ decision before us is a\\nfinal decision. A claim is administratively exhausted if it results in a “final decision . . . subject\\nto judicial review.” Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 1991). Elkhorn argues that\\nthe ALJ decision does not fit that bill because, under SMCRA implementing regulations, only a\\ndecision rendered by the Appeals Board, and not an ALJ, constitutes a final decision. Johnson\\nacknowledges that, normally, only decisions by the Appeals Board are final but says that an\\nexception to that rule makes the ALJ decision in this case a final one. We agree with Johnson.\\n\\n Congress may define what constitutes a final decision. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S.\\n749, 766–77 (1975). Or, it may delegate that task to the agency itself. Id. Congress does not\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\ndefine finality in the text of SMCRA, so the Secretary fleshes out its meaning through\\nregulations. Those regulations provide a general finality definition that makes only decisions of\\nthe Appeals Board “final . . . agency action subject to judicial review . . . .” 43 C.F.R. § 4.21(c),\\n(d). But the regulations also contain a narrow carve-out to that general rule. The carve-out is\\ntriggered if, simultaneous to filing an appeal with the Appeals Board, the litigant petitions for a\\nstay of the ALJ decision until the appeal is resolved. Id. § 4.21(a)(2). In that case, if the Appeals\\nBoard denies or “fails to act on the petition” to stay “within 45 calendar days of the” appeal\\ndeadline, then the ALJ decision becomes a “final” decision “subject to judicial review.” Id.\\n§ 4.21(a)(3), (b)(4), (c).\\n\\n That carve-out has straightforward application here. Johnson timely appealed the ALJ’s\\nruling to the Appeals Board and simultaneously asked the Board to stay the ALJ’s ruling until it\\nresolved the appeal. Forty-five days after Johnson’s appeal deadline, the Appeals Board still had\\nnot answered Elkhorn’s request for a stay. At that point, the ALJ’s decision, even though\\npending appeal before the agency, became “final,” according to 43 C.F.R. § 4.21(c).\\n\\n Although § 4.21(c) seems to have obvious application to this case, Elkhorn contends that\\nit is the wrong place to look and urges the court to turn to § 4.1101(a) instead. That section vests\\nthe Appeals Board with “authority to exercise the final decisionmaking power of the Secretary\\nunder the act . . . .” 43 C.F.R. § 4.1101(a). Because only the Appeals Board possesses “final\\ndecisionmaking power,” Elkhorn’s argument goes, only the Appeals Board, and not an ALJ, can\\nissue a final decision subject to judicial review. But the fact that the Appeals Board possesses\\nfinal decisionmaking power does not mean an ALJ may never issue a final decision. SMCRA\\nregulations allow the Appeals Board to exercise its final decisionmaking power with discretion.\\nIf the Appeals Board stays an ALJ decision pending appeal, then it assumes responsibility for\\nissuing a final, judicially reviewable decision. On the other hand, according to § 4.21(c), if the\\nAppeals Board denies or declines to act on a simultaneously filed stay petition within the\\nprescribed forty-five-day window, then it has effectively “decided” that the ALJ opinion will be\\nthe final, judicially reviewable decision. That is exactly what happened here.\\n\\n Even so, Elkhorn asserts that Shawnee and Southern Ohio expressly hold that only\\ndecisions from the Appeals Board are final. Yet Elkhorn misrepresents the holdings of those\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\ncases. Shawnee and Southern Ohio simply state that SMCRA mandates exhaustion. See S. Ohio\\nCoal Co., 20 F.3d at 1425; Shawnee, 661 F.2d at 1091. They do not say, however, when a\\ndecision becomes final and SMCRA’s exhaustion requirements are met. But SMCRA\\nregulations do. And they make clear that the ALJ’s decision in this case became final once the\\nAppeals Board declined to act on Johnson’s stay petition within forty-five days of the appeal\\ndeadline. 43 C.F.R. § 4.21(c). Johnson therefore exhausted its administrative remedies to the\\nextent required by SMCRA.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n Satisfied that Johnson has cleared this exhaustion hurdle, we move to the merits of its\\nclaims against Elkhorn. Johnson says the ALJ’s affirmance of the Secretary’s termination of the\\ncessation order was arbitrary, capricious, or inconsistent with law for three main reasons: (1) the\\nSecretary and the ALJ erroneously concluded that subsection (C) allows the Kentucky Cabinet to\\nissue surface mining permits in reliance on Kentucky’s cotenancy law3; (2) when the Kentucky\\nCabinet issued Elkhorn’s revised permit over Johnson’s objections it unlawfully adjudicated a\\n“property rights dispute” in violation of 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6)(C); and (3) the Kentucky\\nCabinet should have withheld Elkhorn’s permit under 30 U.S.C. § 1257(b)(9), because Elkhorn\\nfailed to disclose on its revised application the existence of Johnson’s still-pending lawsuit,\\nJohnson I. We address each argument in turn.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n The Secretary terminated its cessation order after concluding that Elkhorn’s amended\\npermit complied with the statutory requirements set out in subsection (C). And the ALJ upheld\\nthat decision after determining that subsection (C) allows a regulatory authority to turn to any\\nstate law to assess whether a permit applicant has submitted documents demonstrating it has a\\n\\n 3Johnson also argues that Kentucky’s regulatory analogue to subsection (C), 405 Ky. Admin. Regs. 8:030\\n§ 4(2)(c), likewise prohibits reliance on Kentucky’s cotenancy law. But the Kentucky regulation is not relevant to\\nour review of the Secretary’s decision to terminate the cessation order. The Secretary’s decision was based on the\\nconclusion that Elkhorn’s permit complied with SMCRA’s permitting requirements. This case, therefore, deals only\\nwith the Secretary’s interpretation of SMCRA and not the Kentucky regulation. Johnson could have challenged the\\nCabinet’s permitting decision as inconsistent with Kentucky’s regulations. AR 0134; see Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.\\n§ 350.0301(1). It chose to challenge the Secretary’s decision instead. The Secretary’s decision, then, is the only\\ndecision we review.\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nright to surface mine. Under that reading of the provision, the ALJ explained, the Cabinet was\\npermitted to rely on Kentucky’s law of cotenancy to approve Elkhorn’s permit. Johnson argues\\nthat subsection (C) is narrower, permitting the Cabinet to consider only state-law rules of\\nconstruction for interpreting severance conveyances that do not expressly grant a right to surface\\nmine.4\\n\\n We agree with the Secretary that subsection (C) permits the Cabinet to rely on any state\\nlaw in making its permitting decision. Therefore, the ALJ’s application of Kentucky cotenancy\\nlaw, instead of the state’s rules of construction for vague severance deeds, to uphold the issuance\\nof Elkhorn’s permit and the Secretary’s termination of the cessation order was not arbitrary,\\ncapricious, or contrary to law.\\n\\n 1. Subsection (C)\\n Our interpretation of subsection (C) begins and ends with the provision’s text. Robinson\\nv. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997). Subsection (C) states:\\n\\n If the conveyance does not expressly grant the right to extract coal by surface\\n mining methods, the surface-subsurface legal relationship shall be determined in\\n accordance with State law . . . .\\n\\n30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6)(C). On its face, the text does not limit the source of state law that a\\nregulatory authority may consult to make a permitting decision. It simply instructs the\\nregulatory authority to determine the surface-subsurface legal relationship of an estate “in\\naccordance with State law.” Read naturally, the unmodified phrase “State law” embraces the use\\nof any state law. Cf. Levin v. Miss. River Fuel Corp., 386 U.S. 162, 168 (1967) (“In using the\\nlanguage ‘required under applicable State law,’ § 5(11) [of the Interstate Commerce Act]\\nembraced all state law . . . .”). That includes the full range of a state’s “legislation, judicial\\nprecedents, and accepted legal principles,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1015 (10th ed. 2014), not\\nonly state-law rules for interpreting severance conveyances.\\n\\n 4The specific rule of construction that Johnson believes applies here comes from the Broad Form Deed\\nAmendment to Kentucky’s Constitution. That amendment provides that severance deeds that do not expressly grant\\na right to surface mine must be interpreted to allow “coal extraction by only the . . . methods . . . commonly known\\nto be in use . . . at the time the instrument was executed.” Johnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d at 221 (quoting Ky.\\nConst. § 19(2)). Because surface mining was not commonly in use at the time the severance conveyances connected\\nto Tract 46 were executed, they do not grant a right to surface mine under the Amendment.\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n Johnson reads subsection (C) differently. Under Johnson’s interpretation, the provision\\nunambiguously allows the regulatory authority to turn to state law only for determining the\\nsurface-subsurface legal relationship as defined by the severance conveyance and not any other\\ndocument. Arriving at that interpretation, however, requires several feats of textual acrobatics\\nthat only contort a straightforward text.\\n\\n Johnson’s first maneuver misconstrues the relationship between subsection (C)’s two\\nclauses. According to Johnson, the first clause announces a purpose that informs the meaning of\\nthe second clause. And because the first clause references “the conveyance,” Johnson says that\\nits purpose is to provide a method for interpreting a severance conveyance. That means, Johnson\\ncontends, that the “surface-subsurface legal relationship” in the second clause is a legal\\nrelationship that may only be defined by a severance conveyance—and, therefore, the only\\nrelevant “State law” is that which helps the regulatory authority construe the severance\\nconveyance.\\n\\n But that argument mischaracterizes the function of subsection (C)’s first clause. The\\nclause is a classic conditional statement. As a conditional statement, rather than announcing the\\npurpose of the entire subsection, it simply limits the subsection’s applicability. When, according\\nto the conditional statement, does subsection (C) apply? Only “if the conveyance does not\\nexpressly grant a right to surface mine.” And what does the regulatory authority do when that\\ncondition is met? The remainder of subsection (C) tells us: the regulator determines “the\\nsurface-subsurface legal relationship . . . in accordance with State law.” No portion of\\nsubsection (C)’s text limits the realm of documents the regulatory authority may consult to make\\nthat state-law determination. Thus, any document that state law deems relevant—whether the\\nseverance conveyance, a right of entry lease, or otherwise—may inform the regulatory\\nauthority’s permitting decision under subsection (C).\\n\\n Johnson’s second syntactical stunt attempts to rely on the canon of harmonious reading.\\nSee FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (“A court\\nmust . . . interpret the statute ‘as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme,’ and ‘fit, if\\npossible, all parts into an harmonious whole.” (internal citations omitted)). Johnson posits that\\nthe only way to read subsections (A), (B), and (C) harmoniously is to interpret subsection (C) as\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nrequiring the application of state law to the severance conveyance. In support of that view,\\nJohnson emphasizes that subsections (B) and (C) both mention a conveyance, whereas\\nsubsection (A) only discusses consent. The way Johnson sees it, this difference in language\\nindicates that Congress intended to provide only two methods of establishing a right to surface\\nmine: by a conveyance or by consent. The only difference between subsections (B) and (C),\\nJohnson contends, is that the latter “merely specifies the choice of law when interpreting rights\\nthat are not explicit in the [conveyance].” Appellant Br. 31.\\n\\n Reading the subsections harmoniously, however, does not mandate such a narrow\\ninterpretation of subsection (C). An equally harmonious interpretation is that when an applicant\\nhas neither the consent of all surface owners, as allowed under subsection (A), nor an express\\nconveyance, as allowed under subsection (B), it may establish a right to surface mine through\\nany other method “in accordance with State law” under subsection (C). That interpretation does\\nnot create any inconsistencies between the three subsections.\\n\\n Finally, Johnson urges that reading subsection (C) too broadly renders subsection (A)\\nsuperfluous. That is, if subsection (C) allows resort to Kentucky cotenancy law, which\\nauthorizes surface mining based on the consent of fewer than all surface owners, then subsection\\n(A)’s complete-consent requirement no longer plays any role whatsoever in a state’s permitting\\ndeterminations. That argument also fails to carry the day. Even Johnson acknowledges that not\\nevery state allows one tenant to surface mine over a cotenant’s objections. Appellant Br. 34. It\\nmay be true that, as a practical matter, subsection (A) plays a diminished role in Kentucky. But\\nwe do not read nationally applicable statutes through a single-state lens.\\n\\n In fact, SMCRA’s national application in a domain traditionally controlled by the states is\\njust one more reason to interpret subsection (C) broadly, allowing consideration of any state law\\nto determine whether the surface-subsurface legal relationship includes a right to surface mine.\\nBecause “‘property’ and ‘interests in property’ are creatures of state law,” Barnhill v. Johnson,\\n503 U.S. 393, 398 (1992), we should expect a “‘clear and manifest’ statement from Congress”\\nthat it intended to preempt certain state property laws governing the right to surface mine before\\ninterpreting SMCRA as doing so, Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 738 (2006) (citation\\nomitted). There is no “clear and manifest” statement of such intent in this case. To be sure, as\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nElkhorn points out, SMCRA’s “cooperative federalism” framework is designed to impose on\\nstates more restrictive regulations governing the practice of surface mining, in part to protect the\\nrights of landowners. See 30 U.S.C. § 1202(b) (listing as another purpose “assur[ing] that the\\nright of surface landowners . . . are fully protected from [surface mining] operations”). But that\\nis just one purpose the Act furthers. The statute lists twelve more, including “encourag[ing] the\\nfull utilization of coal resources,” id. § 1202(k), and assuring “that the coal supply essential to\\nthe Nation’s energy requirements . . . is provided,” id. § 1202(f). That Congress also listed\\nprotecting landowners among those purposes does not prove that it unequivocally intended to\\noverride some state property laws—but not others—governing rights of entry. Cf. Crow Tribe of\\nIndians v. Peters, 835 F. Supp. 2d 985, 992 (D. Mont. 2011) (“[B]oth SMCRA and its\\nimplementing regulations make clear that nothing in the surface owner protections are to be\\nconstrued as increasing or diminishing any property rights.”).\\n\\n The text of subsection (C), then, is quite clear: when a conveyance does not expressly\\ngrant the right to surface mine, the regulatory authority may rely on any state law to determine\\nwhether the documents describing the surface-subsurface legal relationship of the severed estate\\ngrant such a right. Because subsection (C) is plain and unambiguous, our analysis ends where it\\nbegan: with the statutory text. Robins, 519 U.S. at 340. We need not consider Johnson’s lengthy\\ncitations to conflicting legislative history. Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 147–48 (1994)\\n(“[W]e do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear.”). And we need\\nnot defer to the Secretary’s own interpretation of the text (although we note that doing so in this\\ncase would yield the same result). Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844 (holding that when a statute is\\nambiguous, the court “may not substitute its own construction . . . for a reasonable interpretation\\nmade by the . . . agency”).\\n\\n 2. The ALJ’s Decision\\n\\n The ALJ, arriving at the same interpretation we do, found Kentucky’s cotenancy law\\napplicable to Elkhorn’s permit and concluded that Elkhorn’s permit was issued in accordance\\nwith cotenancy law outlined by a Kentucky appellate case, Johnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d 216\\n(Ky. Ct. App. 2009). Therefore, the ALJ held that Elkhorn’s revised permit was valid under\\nsubsection (C) and upheld the Secretary’s decision to terminate the cessation order. The ALJ’s\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\napplication of the cotenancy law outlined by Johnson v. Cabinet was not arbitrary, capricious, or\\ncontrary to law. See 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2).\\n\\n In Johnson v. Cabinet, the Kentucky court of appeals ruled that “a cotenant ha[s] the right\\nto begin strip mining operations on . . . property despite objections from another cotenant.”\\nJohnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d at 220. That holding derived from the common law principle\\nthat “[a] cotenant may use and enjoy a common estate in real property in the same manner as if\\nhe or she were the sole owner.” Id. at 219 (citing York v. Warren Oil & Gas Co., 229 S.W. 114\\n(Ky. 1921)). Applying that principle, Johnson v. Cabinet determined that a right of entry lease\\nexecuted between only one surface tenant and a coal mining company demonstrated that the coal\\ncompany had a right to surface mine even over other surface tenants’ objections. Id. at 220.\\n\\n The ALJ was not wrong to apply that precedent to this case. Here, just like the coal\\ncompany in Johnson v. Cabinet, Elkhorn established its right to enter and surface mine by\\nrelying on a right of entry agreement with one of the plot’s surface owners, Pike Letcher. And\\nhere, just as in Johnson v. Cabinet, some surface owners objected to surface mining. There is no\\nmeaningful difference between Johnson v. Cabinet and this case that would make Kentucky’s\\nlaw of cotenancy applicable there but not here.\\n\\n Johnson’s counterargument is unconvincing. Johnson argues that Kentucky’s law of\\ncotenancy only “defines the surface-surface legal relationship rather than the surface-subsurface\\nlegal relationship, as mandated by [subsection (C)].” Appellant Br. 23. When it comes to the\\nsurface-subsurface legal relationship, Johnson again asserts, only the severance conveyance\\ncontrols—and that means that the only relevant state law is that which guides the regulatory\\nauthority’s interpretation of the severance conveyance. But Johnson v. Cabinet considered and\\nexpressly rejected the same argument by the nonconsenting cotenants there. The court explained\\nthat, in Kentucky, the law “does not make a distinction between surface and mineral interests\\nwhen construing the mutual rights, duties and liabilities of cotenants”—the general rules of\\ncotenancy “carr[y] over into the field of minerals, which are simply part of the land.”\\n289 S.W.3d at 220–21 (discussing cases). Moreover, Kentucky’s rules regarding the\\ninterpretation of severance conveyances, Johnson v. Cabinet explained, “did not change in any\\nfundamental way the long-standing law of cotenancy.” Id. at 221 (citation omitted). The court\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\nconcluded that when an applicant to surface mine based its right to do so on a surface lease\\nagreement, and not a severance conveyance, Kentucky cotenancy law applied. Elkhorn itself\\nbased its right to surface mine on its surface entry agreement with Pike Letcher rather than any\\nseverance conveyance. Therefore, according to Johnson v. Cabinet, the State’s cotenancy laws\\ngovern. Johnson thus fails to show that the ALJ’s application of Kentucky cotenancy law in its\\nreview of the Secretary’s termination decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n SMCRA places an important limitation on a regulatory authority’s power: in the course\\nof reviewing permit applications, the regulatory authority may not “adjudicate property rights\\ndisputes.” 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6)(C). Johnson asserts that the Cabinet and the Secretary\\nviolated this restriction by approving Elkhorn’s revised permit application in spite of Johnson’s\\nobjections to Elkhorn’s right to surface mine. According to Johnson, because of its ongoing\\nobjection to Elkhorn’s right, SMCRA implicitly required Elkhorn to obtain a final, unappealable\\nstate court judgment affirming that it had a right to surface mine under state law before obtaining\\na permit. The ALJ and district court both rejected that argument. So do we.\\n\\n SMCRA’s prohibition against adjudicating a property rights dispute appears at the end of\\nits list of potential ways an applicant may establish a right to surface mine on a severed estate.\\nThe end of that list begins with a (now-familiar) command and ends with the important property-\\nrights-dispute caveat. It reads: “[I]f the conveyance does not expressly grant the right to extract\\ncoal by surface mining methods, the surface-subsurface legal relationship shall be determined in\\naccordance with State law: Provided, That nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize\\nthe regulatory authority to adjudicate property rights disputes.” 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(6)(C)\\n(underline added).\\n\\n SMCRA does not define what constitutes “property rights disputes.” Johnson argues that\\nthe phrase covers any disagreement over an applicant’s right to surface mine, including\\nJohnson’s disagreement over the range of applicable state law under subsection (C). But that\\ninterpretation of the phrase is too broad. The restriction against adjudicating property rights\\ndisputes operates as an exception from the general mandate that the regulatory authority\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\ndetermine whether a permit applicant has established that it has a right to surface mine. See\\n64 Fed. Reg. 70766, 70807–08 (Dec. 17, 1999) (adopting the reasoning from two Eastern\\nDistrict of Kentucky cases holding that the regulatory authority has an obligation to\\n“administratively ascertain that a prima facie showing of the right to surface mine under state\\nlaw has been properly documented by the applicant” (citations omitted)). As an exception to that\\ngeneral mandate, it should be construed narrowly. Comm’r v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989)\\n(“[W]e usually read [an] exception narrowly in order to preserve the primary operation of the\\nprovision.”).\\n\\n A few court cases and administrative decisions provide an appropriately narrow\\ndescription of the “property rights disputes” encompassed by SMCRA. Those cases conclude\\nthat such disputes challenge the validity or interpretation of a conveyance, the location of a\\nparcel’s boundary lines, allegations of waste or ouster, or other disagreements related to\\nownership over the land. See Akers v. Baldwin, No. 84-88, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law\\nand Order at 12 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 28, 1985), R. 64-3, PID 745 (property rights disputes over which\\nthe Cabinet lacks jurisdiction are those dealing with “whether any given conveyance had been\\nobtained by fraud, whether the consent obtained was signed by the proper heirs to a particular\\ntract of land, whether there was a boundary line or other dispute concerning the realty’s\\ndescription, and other such individualized matters”); Akers v. Bradley, No. 84-88, Opinion,\\nOrder and Judgment 2 (E.D. Ky. June 20, 1988), R. 64-6, PID 752 (reiterating the definition in\\nBaldwin); Foster E. Sword, 138 IBLA 74, 81 (Feb. 3, 1997) (describing a disagreement over the\\nlocation of a property boundary line as “a property title or rights dispute[]” that the Cabinet\\ncannot resolve); Paul F. Kuhn, 120 IBLA 1, 9 (July 3, 1991) (concluding that a dispute over\\nproper surveying reference points for demarcating property boundary lines is “clearly a property\\ndispute” outside the Cabinet’s jurisdiction); Johnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d at 221–22 (listing\\nlawsuits alleging ouster or waste among the types of “property rights” disputes over which the\\nKentucky Cabinet has no jurisdiction (citations omitted)); Dep’t for Nat. Res. & Env’t Prot. v.\\nStearns Coal & Lumber Co., 563 S.W.2d 471, 473 & n.4 (Ky. 1978) (emphasizing that disputes\\nover the proper interpretation of a deed are proper for Kentucky state courts and not for the\\nCabinet to resolve).\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\n Johnson’s objection to Elkhorn’s permit does not fit within that narrow category of\\nproperty rights disputes. Johnson does not contest the validity of any deed connected to Tract 46\\nor the right of entry agreement between Pike Letcher and Elkhorn. Instead, Johnson contests the\\nCabinet’s application of settled Kentucky cotenancy law to Elkhorn’s permit and the Secretary’s\\naffirmance that the Cabinet’s application of that law was consistent with the requirements of\\nsubsection (C). Moreover, Johnson actually concedes that under Kentucky cotenancy law\\nElkhorn’s right of entry agreement gives it a right to surface mine. Appellant Br. 20.\\nNonetheless, Johnson argues that the text of subsection (C) makes cotenancy law irrelevant.\\nThat is a dispute over statutory interpretation, not property rights.\\n\\n What is more, Johnson’s assertion that the Cabinet must withhold a permit until every\\npossible dispute between landowners is resolved by a final, unappealable state court judgment is\\nunsupported (as Johnson acknowledges) by SMCRA’s express requirements. The cases Johnson\\ncites do not support that position either—unlike this one, those cases dealt with bona fide\\nproperty rights disputes. In the first case, the applicant’s right to surface mine was subject to a\\ndispute over the questionable validity of the applicant’s surface lease. Ky. S. Coal Corp. v. Ky.\\nEnergy & Env’t. Cabinet (“KSCC”), 396 S.W.3d 804, 805–07 (Ky. 2013) (finding that a bona\\nfide property rights dispute existed when the applicant’s right of entry agreement expired while\\nits application was pending, and it was unclear how a prior state court judgment affected the\\nexpiration of the mining rights contained in the lease). In the second case, the right to surface\\nmine hinged on the proper interpretation of an ambiguous deed. Marion Taylor, 125 IBLA 271\\n(Feb. 14, 1993), vacated, Coal-Mac, Inc. v. Babbitt, Case No. 7:93-cv-00117-JMH, R. 48, at 272\\n(E.D. Ky. Aug. 9, 1995) (concluding that a bona fide property rights dispute existed over\\nwhether a deed’s grant of “all mining rights” to the mineral owner included the right to surface\\nmine). Here, however, there is no quarrel over the validity or interpretation of the right of entry\\nagreement between Elkhorn and Pike Letcher. Consequently, neither KSCC nor Marion help\\nJohnson’s efforts to fit this case within the category of “property rights disputes” that must be\\nresolved in state court before the regulatory authority may issue a permit to surface mine.\\n\\n Finally, it is worth noting the types of property rights claims Johnson could have raised in\\nthe appropriate tribunal but did not. Johnson could have asserted in state proceedings that\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\nJohnson v. Cabinet was incorrectly decided, but it declined to do so. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.\\n§ 350.0301(1). Johnson likewise refrained from initiating a state-court action alleging waste,\\nseeking a partition, or pursuing other forms of relief from Elkhorn’s surface mining activities.\\nSee Johnson v. Cabinet, 289 S.W.3d at 221–22; Kelley v. Kelley, No. 2010-CA-000831-MR,\\n2011 WL 6412079, at *1 (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2011). Those actions would fall within the\\nrealm of property rights disputes that the Cabinet and the Secretary have no authority to resolve.\\nJohnson’s dispute over the proper interpretation of SMCRA does not.\\n\\n For all these reasons, it was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for the ALJ to\\nconclude that neither the Cabinet nor the Secretary adjudicated a property rights dispute when\\nthey approved Elkhorn’s revised permit and terminated the cessation order, respectively.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n Johnson’s final claim has to do with one of SMCRA’s disclosure requirements. Every\\napplicant for a permit to surface mine must inform the regulatory authority whether its “legal\\nright to enter and commence surface mining operations . . . is the subject of pending litigation.”\\n30 U.S.C. § 1257(b)(9). Johnson says Elkhorn violated that disclosure rule because it omitted\\nthe pending Johnson I suit from its revised application for a permit. In its revised application,\\nJohnson submitted a standard form that asks the applicant whether “any rights to enter and mine\\nthe area, as claimed by the applicant, [are] subject to any pending litigation.” AR 0825-1642.\\nJohnson answered, “N/A.” Id. Of course, at the time Elkhorn submitted its revised application,\\nthe Johnson I suit was still (indeed, is still) pending in federal court. So, Johnson asserts,\\nElkhorn should have listed the suit on its application, and its failure to do so made the application\\ninaccurate and incomplete. Therefore, Johnson contends, the Cabinet could not have lawfully\\nissued Elkhorn’s permit, because SMCRA allows it to issue a permit only upon finding that “the\\npermit application is accurate and complete . . . .” Id. § 1260(b)(1). We are unconvinced.\\n\\n To start, it is doubtful that the Johnson I litigation is the kind of “pending litigation” that\\nis subject to SMCRA’s disclosure requirements. The district court concluded, albeit without\\nexplanation, that the purpose behind SMCRA’s disclosure rule is to keep the Cabinet from\\nunlawfully adjudicating a property rights dispute. The parties (including Johnson) seem to\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\nassume the correctness of that proposition, although they likewise fail to cite any supporting\\nauthority. If that really is its purpose, then Elkhorn had no duty to disclose the pending lawsuit\\non its application, because the lawsuit is not a property rights dispute.\\n\\n Yet even if Elkhorn was required to disclose the lawsuit on the application, its failure to\\ndo so was harmless error. Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d 623, 637 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[T]his court\\napplies a harmless-error rule to APA cases, such that a mistake that has no bearing on the\\nultimate decision or causes no prejudice shall not be the basis for reversing an agency’s\\ndetermination.” (citation omitted)); see also 5 U.S.C. § 706 (stating that judicial review of\\nagency action shall take “due account . . . of the rule of prejudicial error”). That is because all\\nparties, including the Cabinet and the Secretary, were aware of the ongoing litigation in Johnson\\nI. The Cabinet’s actual knowledge means that it had the opportunity to withhold Elkhorn’s\\npermit if it believed the suit’s existence undermined Elkhorn’s eligibility for a permit to surface\\nmine. And the Secretary could have refused to terminate the cessation order if it concluded the\\nCabinet issued Elkhorn’s permit in violation of SMCRA’s disclosure provision. Accordingly,\\neven assuming Elkhorn should have indicated on its revised application that Johnson I remained\\npending, its failure to do so was harmless error and therefore cannot justify undoing the ALJ’s\\ndecision.\\n\\n V.\\n\\n Finally, the Kentucky Cabinet, acting as Amicus Curiae, raises a host of additional\\narguments that it says go to this court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case. In fact, none of\\nthe Cabinet’s arguments raise jurisdictional concerns. Briefly, the Cabinet first argues that the\\ncourt has no authority to review the Secretary’s decision to terminate the cessation order or to\\ncompel the Secretary to re-issue the order. But SMCRA allows for judicial review of any of the\\nSecretary’s orders or decisions, including decisions concerning the issuance, modification, or\\ntermination of cessation orders. 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2); id § 1275. Hence, the court does have\\njurisdiction to review the termination decision here. The Cabinet also asserts that Johnson’s\\nappeal amounts to an improper collateral attack on Kentucky’s permitting decision and, by\\nextension, the State’s SMCRA-implementing regulations. But Johnson does not ask the court to\\nreview the Cabinet’s decision to issue the permit pursuant to its own regulations; rather, it asks\\n\\f No. 18-5520 M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. Bernhardt, et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\nus to review the Secretary’s determination that the permit complied with SMCRA. For that\\nreason, we address SMCRA’s statutory requirements only, and leave any differences in the\\nKentucky permitting requirements for another court on another day. Finally, the Cabinet takes\\nissue with the Secretary’s issuance of the cessation order in the first instance, arguing that in\\nissuing it the Secretary did not comply with SMCRA’s procedural requisites. Whatever the\\nmerits of that argument, it has no bearing on jurisdiction. And because it was not “raised below”\\nor “advanced in this court by any party,” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 721\\n(2014), we decline to address it.\\n\\n VI.\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2078,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4619723,"string":"4,619,723"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"BILLY F. HAWK, JR., GST NON-EXEMPT MARITAL TRUST, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Trustees; Estate of Billy F. Hawk, Junior, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Executors; Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Exempt Marital Trust, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Trustees; Nancy Sue Hawk, Transferee, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Marital Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-15"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1534"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Guy, Sutton, Nalbandian\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0092p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n BILLY F. HAWK, JR., GST NON-EXEMPT MARITAL ┐\\n TRUST, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and │\\n Regions Bank, Co-Trustees; ESTATE OF BILLY F. │\\n HAWK, JUNIOR, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk │\\n and Regions Bank, Co-Executors; BILLY F. HAWK, JR., │\\n GST EXEMPT MARITAL TRUST, Trustee, Transferee, > No. 18-1534\\n │\\n Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Trustees;\\n │\\n NANCY SUE HAWK, Transferee,\\n │\\n Petitioners-Appellants, │\\n │\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, │\\n Respondent-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Tax Court;\\n Nos. 30024-09; 30025-09; 30026-09; 30515-09—Joseph R. Goeke, Judge.\\n\\n Argued: April 30, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 15, 2019\\n\\n Before: GUY, SUTTON, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\n\\nARGUED: J. Eric Butler, LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C.,\\nKnoxville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Arthur T. Catterall, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT\\nOF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: J. Eric Butler, Katherine Sanford\\nGoodner, LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C., Knoxville, Tennessee,\\nAshley Hodges Morgan, LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C., Memphis,\\nTennessee, David S. Garbett, Brian P. Yates, GARBETT, ALLEN & ROZA, P.A., Miami,\\nFlorida, John P. Konvalinka, GRANT, KONVALINKA & HARRISON, P.C., Chattanooga,\\nTennessee, for Appellants. Arthur T. Catterall, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, Richard Caldarone,\\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 2\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. After Billy Hawk died in 2000, his wife Nancy Sue decided to\\nsell the family bowling business, Holiday Bowl. With the help of lawyers and accountants, she\\nmade a deal with MidCoast, a company that claimed an interest in acquiring companies with\\ncorporate tax liabilities that it could set off against its net-operating losses. Holiday Bowl first\\nsold its assets—bowling alleys—to Bowl New England, receiving $4.2 million in cash and\\ngenerating about $1 million in federal taxes. After that, Nancy Sue and Billy’s estate sold\\nHoliday Bowl to MidCoast for about $3.4 million, in essence exchanging one pile of cash for\\nanother minus the tax debt MidCoast agreed to pay. But MidCoast never paid the taxes. The\\nUnited States filed this transferee-liability action against Nancy Sue Hawk and Billy Hawk’s\\nestate to recover Holiday Bowl’s unpaid taxes. The Tax Court ruled for the government,\\nconcluding that the Hawks were transferees of a delinquent taxpayer under federal law and\\npermitting the government to recover the unpaid taxes from the Hawks under Tennessee law.\\nWe affirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n When shareholders sell a privately held corporation, they have a range of options. One is\\nan asset sale, in which the corporation sells its assets (e.g., the bowling alleys), pays a tax on the\\ngain, and distributes what’s left to the shareholders. In this setting, the Commissioner taxes the\\ncorporation upon the sale of the assets and taxes the shareholders when they receive their\\ndistributions.\\n\\n Another option is a stock sale, in which the shareholders sell their stock to a third party.\\nBecause the corporation never sells its assets, the transaction doesn’t trigger corporate tax, and\\nthe original shareholders pay only their individual income taxes. If the new owners dispose of\\nthe corporate assets down the road, however, the corporation will incur taxes then. Buyers in a\\nstock sale often pay less to account for future taxes they must pay.\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 3\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\n After Billy Hawk’s death in 2000, Nancy Sue owned almost a fifth of the company’s\\nstock and her husband’s estate owned the remainder. Billy and Nancy Sue’s two sons operated\\nthe two bowling alleys awhile. But that didn’t work. By 2002, she realized she needed to sell\\nHoliday Bowl. She chose an asset sale to Bowl New England. The sale left Holiday Bowl with\\n$4.2 million in cash and left the company owing about $1 million in federal income taxes and\\nabout $200,000 in state taxes. Holiday Bowl also owned some real property, a family horse farm\\nthat Nancy Sue wanted to keep, valued at $777,000.\\n\\n Trying to lower the corporate taxes triggered by the transaction, the Hawks’ broker\\napproached their attorney with information about a company called MidCoast that had\\n“tremendous tax-loss carry-forwards.” J.A. 3 at 797. If MidCoast bought Holiday Bowl, the\\nbroker advertised, Holiday Bowl would not need to pay corporate taxes on the asset sale. As a\\nresult, MidCoast promised to pay the Hawks more than Holiday Bowl’s actual value—what\\nwould have been its cash on hand minus outstanding taxes. Nancy Sue Hawk and the estate\\nstood to keep an extra $200,000 to $300,000 by structuring the transaction in this way.\\nMidCoast purported to offer Holiday Bowl a way to realize the best attributes of an asset sale\\n(the higher sale price of the assets) and a stock sale (no corporate-level tax). In closing his\\nrecommendation, the broker, warily but not warily enough, said: “[I]f it seems too good to be\\ntrue, it probably is. But maybe this is the exception.” Id. at 798.\\n\\n The Hawks proceeded to enjoy what looked like a free lunch. Under the purchase\\nagreement, the Hawks sold Holiday Bowl some of their shares in exchange for the company’s\\nremaining property, the horse farm. That left Holiday Bowl with nothing but cash. MidCoast\\npaid $3.4 million plus expenses for Holiday Bowl’s $4.2 million. To finance the transaction,\\nMidCoast claimed it would borrow money from a company called Sequoia Capital. According\\nto MidCoast, Holiday Bowl would then enter the debt-collection business, rapidly generating\\nnew losses that would offset Holiday Bowl’s existing taxes.\\n\\n After the sale, MidCoast transferred Holiday Bowl to Sequoia in exchange for the\\ncancellation of Sequoia’s loan and about $320,000 in cash. No one ever paid Holiday Bowl’s\\noutstanding taxes, and the one-time bowling company dissolved in 2006.\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 4\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\n The Internal Revenue Service investigated MidCoast, uncovering the Holiday Bowl sale\\nand about sixty similar transactions. That did not end well for MidCoast, Sequoia, and a law\\nfirm, as a grand jury indicted several individuals associated with each of them. One defendant\\npleaded guilty. Others fled the country. The government launched a civil collection proceeding\\nagainst the Hawks in pursuit of Holiday Bowl’s unpaid taxes. The Tax Court concluded that\\nSequoia’s loan to MidCoast was a sham and that Holiday Bowl had simply distributed cash to\\nthe Hawks, who were liable to the government as Holiday Bowl’s fraudulent transferees. This\\nappeal followed.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n To prevent delinquent individuals and corporations from evading taxes by transferring\\ntheir assets to other entities, Congress enacted 26 U.S.C. § 6901. The statute permits the\\ngovernment to pursue a delinquent taxpayer’s transferees in federal court. Once there, the\\ngovernment stands in the position of a private creditor, and state law determines whether the\\ntransferee must pay the taxpayer’s debts. See Comm’r v. Stern, 357 U.S. 39, 47 (1958).\\n\\n Two examples illustrate what § 6901 is getting at. Imagine Company A. It has\\n$5 million in assets that have a basis (cost) of $1 million. Let’s say Company A sells its assets (a\\nmanufacturing plant) to Company B for cash. At that point, Company A would owe federal\\ntaxes on the $4 million gain generated by the sale. But suppose that Company A’s owners\\ndecide not to pay Company A’s taxes. They instead pay themselves $5 million and simply let\\nCompany A go belly-up, leaving Company A’s taxes unpaid. That leaves a classic transferee\\nliability for the owners under § 6901.\\n\\n What happens, however, if the owners try to avoid that liability with an intermediary\\ntransaction? The owners sell Company A to a foreign Company C for $5 million—the exact\\namount of money that Company A has in the bank. This leaves the owners with $5 million, and\\nCompany C with $5 million in Company A, and Company A still needing to pay its taxes.\\nBecause Company C is outside the United States, the government might not be able to pursue\\nCompany C as a transferee when it empties Company A’s coffers and no one pays A’s taxes.\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 5\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nIn this setting, a court might decide that the sale of Company A had no economic substance to it,\\nand that the owners really transferred Company A’s cash directly to themselves.\\n\\n Applied here, § 6901 prompts three questions: (1) Did Holiday Bowl owe any taxes?\\n(2) Are the Hawks transferees of Holiday Bowl? (3) If so, are the Hawks liable to the\\ngovernment under Tennessee’s fraudulent transfer statute? See Stern, 357 U.S. at 41.\\n\\n 1. The Initial Taxpayer. No one disputes that Holiday Bowl incurred taxes on the sale of\\nits assets.\\n\\n 2. Transferees. The Hawks also amount to transferees. Section 6901(h) says that\\ntransferees include a “donee, heir, legatee, devisee, and distributee.” The Hawks do not dispute\\nthat Holiday Bowl transferred the horse farm to them under this definition. Nor could they. The\\ncompany “distribute[d]” the property to the Hawks in exchange for stock.\\n\\n So too when it comes to the $3.4 million they received for the Holiday Bowl sale. But\\nthis conclusion contains a complication or two. As the Hawks see it, they were “distributees” of\\nfunds from MidCoast, not Holiday Bowl. As the government sees it, that transaction was a\\nsham, as MidCoast simply paid the Hawks with Holiday Bowl’s money, making them\\ndistributees of funds from Holiday Bowl all the same.\\n\\n All of this requires a digression about a doctrine, in truth a series of doctrines, by which\\ncourts look to “the economic realities of the business deal” to determine whether a transaction\\noccurred as the taxpayer labeled it. Summa Holdings, Inc. v. Comm’r, 848 F.3d 779, 785 (6th\\nCir. 2017). While taxpayers are free to arrange their affairs to minimize taxes, they must do so\\nin real ways—ways that give a transaction economic teeth and do not merely place tax-avoiding\\nlabels on tax-owing transactions. Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935); Summa\\nHoldings, 848 F.3d at 787. Separating unlawful tax shelters from lawful tax avoidance is always\\ncontext specific and sometimes difficult to pin down.\\n\\n The Tax Court permissibly refused to respect several features of the form that MidCoast\\nand the Hawks tried to place on this transaction. Start with the ostensibly independent financing\\nof it: the Sequoia loan. The Tax Court found that the Hawks didn’t even get Sequoia’s\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 6\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\n(ostensibly) loaned funds. They got Holiday Bowl’s own funds, which were wired into an\\nescrow account and promptly funneled back from the same escrow account to the Hawks. The\\nquintessential explanation for refusing to respect the form of a transaction is that it amounts to a\\ncharade. What purported to be real, a Sequoia loan to MidCoast to finance the sale, was not in\\nfact real, as MidCoast paid for the transaction with Holiday Bowl funds.\\n\\n Even aside from tracing where the dollars and cents came from and where they\\neventually went, the Sequoia loan looked like an impostor on paper. Under the terms of the deal,\\nSequoia had no risk because Holiday Bowl’s own cash served as the collateral for the loan. The\\nidea was that lenders traditionally require security for a loan. And this loan looked like it had\\nsecurity. But an immediately repayable, cash-for-cash loan backed up by cash is not a traditional\\nloan. Money is fungible. So is air. By getting a “loan” from Sequoia, MidCoast could access\\ncash, which it then could immediately pay back with Holiday Bowl’s own money—in effect\\nusing Holiday Bowl’s bank account at no risk to Sequoia. In this setting, the security was no\\nsecurity at all.\\n\\n It gets worse. The parties didn’t sign most of the loan documents, behavior that does not\\naccord with the way people usually transfer large pots of money. Interest and periodic payments\\nare a classic hallmark of real loans. See Roth Steel Tube Co. v. Comm’r, 800 F.2d 625, 631 (6th\\nCir. 1986). But Sequoia’s loan wouldn’t incur interest unless MidCoast defaulted. While\\nSequoia did stand to make about $17,250 when MidCoast paid back the loan, this translated to\\nannual interest of $6.3 million, nearly double what MidCoast borrowed. At dusk’s end, Holiday\\nBowl distributed its money to the Hawks, in substance if not always in form, making them the\\ncompany’s transferees.\\n\\n The problem by the way is not that the Hawks were trying to lower their taxes. No\\nAmerican to our knowledge prefers a higher tax bill. There are other ways to express fealty to\\nour country. The problem is that the transaction lacked economic substance; it was nothing but\\nmisleading labels and distracting forms—trompe l’oeil from start to finish.\\n\\n Precedent, too, looks askance at what the Hawks and their advisors did. Over forty years\\nago, this court faced a similar transaction, in which a shareholder sold a business holding only\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 7\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\ncash and tax liabilities to buyers who claimed—much like MidCoast—to be able to reduce the\\nbusiness’s taxes based on existing business losses. The buyers borrowed the purchase price and\\nimmediately liquidated the business. See Owens v. Comm’r, 568 F.2d 1233, 1236 (6th Cir.\\n1977). In concluding that the transaction was a sleight-of-hand distribution to the original\\nshareholder, Owens noted that “tax liabilities cannot be altered on the basis of parties exchanging\\nthe most fungible commodity of all, cash.” Id. at 1240. Just so here.\\n\\n The Seventh Circuit reached a similar conclusion in a similar setting. The Feldman\\nfamily owned and operated Woodside Ranch, an outdoor resort. See Feldman v. Comm’r, 779\\nF.3d 448, 450 (7th Cir. 2015). As here, the Feldmans decided to sell the company’s assets for\\ncash and incurred large capital gains taxes. Id. at 451. And as here, MidCoast entered the\\npicture with a promise to “pay more for the shares than they were worth,” if you simply\\nsubtracted the tax owed from the cash that Woodside Ranch had. Id. When Woodside never\\npaid its taxes, the government went after the Feldmans.\\n\\n The Seventh Circuit concluded that the Woodside sale was in truth a distribution to the\\nFeldmans. Id. at 456. Some aspects of that case, it is true, made it easier. MidCoast’s loan in\\nthat case “was entirely undocumented.” Id. In this instance, MidCoast and Sequoia drew up\\nloan documents, though they never signed most of them. And in Feldman, MidCoast didn’t sell\\nthe business to the lender; it just immediately repaid the loan. Id. But the core of Feldman and\\nour case remains the same: a cash swap that amounts to a distribution to the shareholders, not a\\nreal sale.\\n\\n Because the Hawks were transferees under § 6901, the government may pursue them in\\nfederal court. That leaves the question of liability under Tennessee law.\\n\\n 3. Liability Under Tennessee Law. Tennessee has adopted the Uniform Fraudulent\\nTransfer Act, which provides remedies to creditors (like the United States) when insolvent\\ndebtors fraudulently transfer assets to third parties. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-301 et seq. The\\nAct treats a transfer as fraudulent “if the debtor made the transfer . . . without receiving a\\nreasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer . . . and the debtor was insolvent at that\\ntime or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer.” Id. § 66-3-306(a). The law\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 8\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nprompts three inquiries of its own: Did the Holiday Bowl transaction count as a transfer? Did\\nHoliday Bowl receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange? Did Holiday Bowl become\\ninsolvent?\\n\\n First, for many of the same reasons the Holiday Bowl transaction amounts to a transfer to\\nthe Hawks under federal law, it counts as a transfer from Holiday Bowl to the Hawks under\\nTennessee law. Tennessee law defines a transfer broadly to include “every mode, direct or\\nindirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an\\nasset or an interest in an asset, and includes payment of money, release, lease, and creation of a\\nlien or other encumbrance.” Id. § 66-3-302(12). Apt is the word “indirect.” Even if the Hawks\\nreceived Sequoia’s money (which they didn’t), the Hawks still would have received Holiday\\nBowl’s funds indirectly.\\n\\n Tennessee courts also consider the economic substance of the Holiday Bowl transaction.\\nThe Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act incorporates traditional “principles of . . . equity.” Id.\\n§ 66-3-311. And Tennessee courts have long relied on sham-transaction principles in settings\\nlike this one. See, e.g., CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Trost, 333 S.W.3d 73, 88 (Tenn. 2010); M. & M.\\nStamp Co. v. Harris, 368 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tenn. 1963). The Tennessee statute also directs that\\nit “shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with\\nrespect to the subject of this [statute] among states enacting it.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-312.\\nAnd other courts have held that the sham-transaction principles apply to other States’ Uniform\\nFraudulent Transfer Acts. See, e.g., Feldman, 779 F.3d at 459 (interpreting the Wisconsin\\nstatute); In re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d 700, 708 (9th Cir. 2008) (interpreting the California\\nstatute).\\n\\n Second, Holiday Bowl didn’t receive reasonably equivalent value for the horse farm or\\nthe cash that the company transferred to the Hawks. The Act defines value as “property”\\ntransferred or “an antecedent debt . . . secured.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-304(a). When the\\nHawks exchanged stock for the horse farm, the transaction merely subtracted from Holiday\\nBowl’s balance sheet. And Holiday Bowl got nothing when the Hawks received their $3.4\\nmillion.\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 9\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\n Third, Holiday Bowl also became insolvent due to this transaction. After the Hawks\\nreceived their cash back, Holiday Bowl had only about two-thirds of the money that it needed to\\npay its outstanding taxes.\\n\\n Nancy Sue Hawk and Billy’s estate resist this conclusion on several grounds.\\n\\n They say that the Tennessee courts wouldn’t look to the reality of the transaction to\\ndetermine what happened. CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Trost proves otherwise. 333 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn.\\n2010). The Tennessee Supreme Court remanded a case at summary judgment to determine\\nwhether a transaction was a sham. Id. at 88–90. While it’s true that one unpublished Tennessee\\nCourt of Appeals case declared that “[n]o Tennessee court has applied the economic substance\\ndoctrine,” the petitioners read too much into the comment. Niuklee, LLC v. Comm’r, Tenn.\\nDep’t of Revenue, No. M2014-01644-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 6941593, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App.\\nNov. 9, 2015). It’s clear that Tennessee courts have applied equitable principles to scrutinize the\\neconomic realities of transactions in a variety of situations.\\n\\n The Hawks take issue with the Tax Court’s conclusion that they knew about MidCoast’s\\nfraudulent scheme. But Tennessee courts look to the economic realities of the transaction\\nregardless of whether the Hawks knew about the fraud. When it comes to constructive fraud,\\nTennessee’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act doesn’t require the transferee to know about the\\ndebtor’s misconduct. Instead, transferees who deal in good faith can offset their liability by\\nwhatever they paid the debtor for the transferred asset—that is, by whatever money they added to\\nthe pool available to creditors. But acting in good faith without more doesn’t preclude transferee\\nliability. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-309(d).\\n\\n Some history shows why. The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act replaced an older model\\nstatute, which had required that creditors prove transferees received an asset from a debtor\\n“without a fair consideration.” Unif. Fraudulent Conveyance Act § 4 (Unif. Law Comm’n\\n1918). The former Act defined “fair consideration” as the exchange of property “in good faith.”\\nId. § 3. According to official comments to the new Fraudulent Transfer Act, the drafters of that\\nstatute intentionally replaced the words “fair consideration” with “reasonably equivalent value”\\nto eliminate any inquiry into the transferee’s intent when determining whether a transfer is\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 10\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nconstructively fraudulent. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-3-305 cmt. 2, 66-3-306 cmt. 1; see also\\nid. § 66-3-313 (directing courts to the official comments).\\n\\n Other courts have said that constructive fraud under the Fraudulent Transfer Act can be\\nestablished without determining whether the transferee acted in good faith. See Feldman,\\n779 F.3d at 459–60; Weintraut v. Comm’r, 112 T.C.M. (CCH) 122, 2016 WL 4040793, at *72\\n(T.C. 2016); Thompson v. Hanson, 239 P.3d 537, 541 (Wash. 2009); see also Shockley v.\\nComm’r, 872 F.3d 1235, 1254 n.17 (11th Cir. 2017).\\n\\n As for cases in which the recharacterization of the transaction and thus constructive fraud\\nturned on showing that the transferees knew about the sketchiness of the tax shelter, they either\\napplied the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act or relied on cases that interpreted the older Act.\\nSee, e.g., Diebold Found., Inc. v. Comm’r, 736 F.3d 172, 186 (2d Cir. 2013) (interpreting\\nUniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act); Salus Mundi Found. v. Comm’r, 776 F.3d 1010, 1020\\n(9th Cir. 2014) (following Diebold to interpret the same Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act);\\nStarnes v. Comm’r, 680 F.3d 417, 433 n.10 (4th Cir. 2012) (imposing a knowledge requirement\\nin a Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act case while citing a Fraudulent Conveyance Act case); see\\nalso Frank Sawyer Tr. v. Comm’r, 712 F.3d 597, 605 (1st Cir. 2013) (applying state-specific\\nequity law to interpret the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act).\\n\\n The bottom line? The Hawks’ “extensive emphasis on their due diligence and lack of\\nknowledge of illegality” doesn’t shield them from the sham nature of the transaction and absolve\\nthem of transferee liability. Feldman, 779 F.3d at 460. That’s the same conclusion the Seventh\\nCircuit reached in Feldman, another MidCoast case, one that applied Wisconsin law and its\\nUniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Id.\\n\\n Switching gears, the Hawks claim that Sequoia’s loan wasn’t a sham, pointing to\\nprovisions in the deal documents that ostensibly prevented the escrow agent from wiring Holiday\\nBowl’s cash directly to them. But one point of the sham-transaction doctrine is to look at what\\nhappened in fact, not what happened on paper.\\n\\n To similar effect, the Hawks claim that the lack of signatures on the loan documents did\\nnot delegitimate the loan. That may be true. But that truth does not take away from the reality\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 11\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nthat prudent lenders in traditional transactions normally do not let such papers go unsigned or the\\nreality that sloppiness often arises when no risk exists. So it was with this “loan.”\\n\\n The Hawks claim that MidCoast’s $17,250 payment to Sequoia constituted a loan fee,\\nproving that there was economic substance to the loan. The better reading is the one the Tax\\nCourt gave: that the fee compensated Sequoia for participating in the scheme. Even on its own\\nterms, the loan didn’t generate interest unless MidCoast defaulted, not a traditional way to\\ncalculate loan interest. A conventional approach to calculating interest would have made the\\n$17,250 amount usurious in the extreme—about a 183% annual rate.\\n\\n The Hawks persist that a series of transactions shows that Sequoia made a real loan.\\nOver a week before the Holiday Bowl sale, Sequoia placed $35 million into a separate money\\nmarket account with the same escrow agent. The day after the Holiday Bowl sale, the agent\\nmoved much of that money into the escrow account used for the Holiday Bowl transaction. The\\nescrow agent then transferred $4 million to a company called Delta Trading Partners, at the\\npurported “instructions of Holiday Bowl’s newly appointed president.” J.A. 3 at 455.\\n\\n But none of this requires overturning the Tax Court’s finding that the transaction lacked\\nmeat on the bones. For one thing, the Tax Court found the escrow agent’s records unreliable,\\nand the Hawks admit that some of the handwritten ledgers were “incorrect” and conflicted with\\ntyped ledgers. Reply Br. 9. For another, the Hawks didn’t receive a portion of the $35 million.\\nAs shown above, they received Holiday Bowl’s money in the escrow account. For still another,\\neven if the Sequoia loan had occurred, that doesn’t change the underlying reality of what\\nhappened. From an economic standpoint, Sequoia could have sent the Hawks Sequoia’s money\\nand then transferred Holiday Bowl’s cash to Delta Trading Partners. Or Sequoia could have sent\\nthe Hawks Holiday Bowl’s funds and used its own money to pay Delta Trading Partners. Either\\nway, Sequoia’s “loan” bore no risk, the Hawks received the same amount, and so did Delta\\nTrading Partners.\\n\\n The Hawks take aim at the Tax Court’s conclusion that this transaction rendered Holiday\\nBowl insolvent. They attempt to argue that the escrow agent didn’t wire Holiday Bowl’s money\\nto them. Escrow accounts like this one often hold funds for more than one client at once. The\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 12\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nHawks encourage us to use first-in-first-out accounting and conclude that they received other\\nclients’ funds unrelated to the Holiday Bowl sale, leaving much of Holiday Bowl’s money\\nuntouched in the escrow account. Whatever the value of the first-in-first-out accounting method\\nto disentangle intermingled assets, however, the Tax Court could identify which deposits and\\npayments corresponded to the Holiday Bowl transaction. No convincing basis for overturning\\nthat finding has emerged. What’s more, even if we apply first-in-first-out accounting, the\\nproblem does not go away. If Holiday Bowl benefited from the transfer of other clients’ money,\\nit would remain on the hook to the true owners, making Holiday Bowl insolvent all the same.\\n\\n Along the same lines, the Hawks point to Sequoia’s post-sale movement of money into\\nthe escrow account and the $4 million wire to Delta Trading Partners as indicating that Holiday\\nBowl controlled $4 million before Sequoia liquidated the company. But that assumes Sequoia’s\\nloan to MidCoast (and its other attempts to shift funds) were not shams or devoid of economic\\nsubstance. The assumption does not hold.\\n\\n Last of all, the Hawks point to Alterman v. Commissioner, a MidCoast case in which the\\nTax Court refused to collapse the transaction under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.\\n110 T.C.M. (CCH) 507, 2015 WL 7753344, at *23 (T.C. 2015). But the Tax Court in Alterman\\nrequired the government to prove that the sellers knew about the fraud based on another Tax\\nCourt decision applying prior Conveyance Act case law. Id. at *17. That ignored the purpose of\\nconstructive fraud under the Transfer Act: to remove knowledge from the equation.\\n\\n ***\\n\\n For those readers still with us, you might wonder: Was there a way to make this\\ntax-reduction strategy work? Was it ever possible for MidCoast to offset Holiday Bowl’s taxes\\nwith net operating losses, say by making the Sequoia loan a kosher one and dotting another “i”\\nand crossing another “t” in the underlying transactions? The answer is “maybe” in the abstract\\nand “not likely” here.\\n\\n As one treatise puts it, “Congress, with assistance from the courts, has constructed a\\nformidable defense against taxpayer efforts to traffic in net operating losses and other corporate\\ntax benefits.” Boris I. Bittker & James S. Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 13\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nShareholders § 14.02 (7th ed. 2019). The Internal Revenue Code prevents a company with pre-\\nexisting losses from purchasing a company with pre-existing gains and canceling the two out\\nwithin five years of the sale. See 26 U.S.C. § 384; Bittker & Eustice, supra, § 14.45.\\n\\n That’s why MidCoast told the Hawks that it would operate Holiday Bowl as a\\ndebt-collection business and generate new losses within Holiday Bowl—a different strategy from\\nthe one the broker originally proposed. For this scheme to eliminate Holiday Bowl’s 2003 taxes,\\nit appears, the new losses needed to arise between the November 2003 sale and the end of the\\nyear. After hearing the evidence, the Tax Court concluded that “[i]t was not plausible” that a\\nMidCoast-owned Holiday Bowl could ever incur the necessary “offsetting expenses” in time.\\nJ.A. 3 at 481.\\n\\n That reality and others too separate this case from Summa Holdings, Inc. v.\\nCommissioner, 848 F.3d 779 (6th Cir. 2017). Those taxpayers sought to take advantage of two\\ninvestment vehicles—a “domestic international sales corporation” and a Roth IRA. The former\\nallows an exporter to shelter certain income from corporate tax. Id. at 782. The latter allows\\nindividuals to save limited amounts tax free. Id. at 783. Done together, a Roth IRA owning\\nshares in a domestic international sales corporation permits taxpayers to transfer (and potentially\\ngrow) many assets in their Roth IRAs and spare themselves considerable taxes. Id.\\n\\n That’s exactly what the Summa Holdings taxpayers did. Citing the substance-over-form\\ndoctrine, however, the Commissioner claimed authority to ignore the form of the legislatively\\napproved transactions. We disagreed because “[the] Internal Revenue Code allowed” the\\ntaxpayers “to do what they did.” Id. at 784. Courts (and agencies) must respect a statute’s text,\\nand the Commissioner’s revision took the substance-over-form doctrine a “step too far.” Id. at\\n785. The Commissioner, we acknowledged, may “honor the fiscal realities of what taxpayers\\nhave done over the form in which they have done it.” Id. But neither the Commissioner in\\nparticular nor the Executive Branch in general may rewrite “the meaning of statutes” whenever it\\ndislikes the law. Id.\\n\\n Think about it. Everyone in Summa Holdings agreed that the plain terms of the relevant\\nstatutes permitted the transaction. Id. at 784. Not even Chevron permits government agencies to\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 14\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nignore the plain text of a statute. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S.\\n837, 842–43 (1984). What, then, made the Internal Revenue Service think it could ignore the\\nplain text of a statute—one that other agencies could not override under Chevron—under the\\nsubstance-over-form doctrine? This version of the doctrine makes Chevron look like a modest\\nassumption of executive power. When all was said and done, Summa Holdings was a case in\\nwhich the taxpayers forced the government to play it straight—to make it respect the form and\\nsubstance of the laws Congress wrote.\\n\\n That leaves two sides to the substance and form coin. On one side is Summa Holdings.\\nIf Congress authorizes taxpayers to do something—in Summa Holdings, employing\\nCode-compliant “shell corporations . . . that have no economic substance”—the Commissioner\\ncan’t override the constitutional forces of bicameralism and presentment. Summa Holdings,\\n898 F.3d at 786. On the other side is the Hawks’ case. The government isn’t seeking to ignore\\nthe form of the Code today. It’s enforcing the statutes as written. No one disputes that Holiday\\nBowl owed taxes that the Code imposes. The Code places substantial limits on even the above-\\nboard version of this transaction, limits that foreclosed MidCoast’s ability to offset Holiday\\nBowl’s pre-existing gains. What’s more, § 6901 provides a mechanism for the government to\\npursue a delinquent taxpayer’s assets in cases just like this one. Tennessee law seeks a similar\\nend. All in all, the Commissioner isn’t disregarding statutory text in the name of economic\\nsubstance; he’s honoring the written word and the economic realities of this transaction.\\n\\n We affirm.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4396976/\", \"author_raw\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"GUY"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SUTTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"NALBANDIAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619723/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: BILLY F. HAWK, JR., GST NON-EXEMPT MARITAL TRUST, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Trustees; Estate of Billy F. Hawk, Junior, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Executors; Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Exempt Marital Trust, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Trustees; Nancy Sue Hawk, Transferee, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-15\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0092p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n BILLY F. HAWK, JR., GST NON-EXEMPT MARITAL ┐\n TRUST, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and │\n Regions Bank, Co-Trustees; ESTATE OF BILLY F. │\n HAWK, JUNIOR, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk │\n and Regions Bank, Co-Executors; BILLY F. HAWK, JR., │\n GST EXEMPT MARITAL TRUST, Trustee, Transferee, > No. 18-1534\n │\n Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Trustees;\n │\n NANCY SUE HAWK, Transferee,\n │\n Petitioners-Appellants, │\n │\n v. │\n │\n │\n COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, │\n Respondent-Appellee. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States Tax Court;\n Nos. 30024-09; 30025-09; 30026-09; 30515-09—Joseph R. Goeke, Judge.\n\n Argued: April 30, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 15, 2019\n\n Before: GUY, SUTTON, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\n\nARGUED: J. Eric Butler, LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C.,\nKnoxville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Arthur T. Catterall, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT\nOF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: J. Eric Butler, Katherine Sanford\nGoodner, LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C., Knoxville, Tennessee,\nAshley Hodges Morgan, LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C., Memphis,\nTennessee, David S. Garbett, Brian P. Yates, GARBETT, ALLEN & ROZA, P.A., Miami,\nFlorida, John P. Konvalinka, GRANT, KONVALINKA & HARRISON, P.C., Chattanooga,\nTennessee, for Appellants. Arthur T. Catterall, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, Richard Caldarone,\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 2\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. After Billy Hawk died in 2000, his wife Nancy Sue decided to\nsell the family bowling business, Holiday Bowl. With the help of lawyers and accountants, she\nmade a deal with MidCoast, a company that claimed an interest in acquiring companies with\ncorporate tax liabilities that it could set off against its net-operating losses. Holiday Bowl first\nsold its assets—bowling alleys—to Bowl New England, receiving $4.2 million in cash and\ngenerating about $1 million in federal taxes. After that, Nancy Sue and Billy’s estate sold\nHoliday Bowl to MidCoast for about $3.4 million, in essence exchanging one pile of cash for\nanother minus the tax debt MidCoast agreed to pay. But MidCoast never paid the taxes. The\nUnited States filed this transferee-liability action against Nancy Sue Hawk and Billy Hawk’s\nestate to recover Holiday Bowl’s unpaid taxes. The Tax Court ruled for the government,\nconcluding that the Hawks were transferees of a delinquent taxpayer under federal law and\npermitting the government to recover the unpaid taxes from the Hawks under Tennessee law.\nWe affirm.\n\n I.\n\n When shareholders sell a privately held corporation, they have a range of options. One is\nan asset sale, in which the corporation sells its assets (e.g., the bowling alleys), pays a tax on the\ngain, and distributes what’s left to the shareholders. In this setting, the Commissioner taxes the\ncorporation upon the sale of the assets and taxes the shareholders when they receive their\ndistributions.\n\n Another option is a stock sale, in which the shareholders sell their stock to a third party.\nBecause the corporation never sells its assets, the transaction doesn’t trigger corporate tax, and\nthe original shareholders pay only their individual income taxes. If the new owners dispose of\nthe corporate assets down the road, however, the corporation will incur taxes then. Buyers in a\nstock sale often pay less to account for future taxes they must pay.\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 3\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\n After Billy Hawk’s death in 2000, Nancy Sue owned almost a fifth of the company’s\nstock and her husband’s estate owned the remainder. Billy and Nancy Sue’s two sons operated\nthe two bowling alleys awhile. But that didn’t work. By 2002, she realized she needed to sell\nHoliday Bowl. She chose an asset sale to Bowl New England. The sale left Holiday Bowl with\n$4.2 million in cash and left the company owing about $1 million in federal income taxes and\nabout $200,000 in state taxes. Holiday Bowl also owned some real property, a family horse farm\nthat Nancy Sue wanted to keep, valued at $777,000.\n\n Trying to lower the corporate taxes triggered by the transaction, the Hawks’ broker\napproached their attorney with information about a company called MidCoast that had\n“tremendous tax-loss carry-forwards.” J.A. 3 at 797. If MidCoast bought Holiday Bowl, the\nbroker advertised, Holiday Bowl would not need to pay corporate taxes on the asset sale. As a\nresult, MidCoast promised to pay the Hawks more than Holiday Bowl’s actual value—what\nwould have been its cash on hand minus outstanding taxes. Nancy Sue Hawk and the estate\nstood to keep an extra $200,000 to $300,000 by structuring the transaction in this way.\nMidCoast purported to offer Holiday Bowl a way to realize the best attributes of an asset sale\n(the higher sale price of the assets) and a stock sale (no corporate-level tax). In closing his\nrecommendation, the broker, warily but not warily enough, said: “[I]f it seems too good to be\ntrue, it probably is. But maybe this is the exception.” Id. at 798.\n\n The Hawks proceeded to enjoy what looked like a free lunch. Under the purchase\nagreement, the Hawks sold Holiday Bowl some of their shares in exchange for the company’s\nremaining property, the horse farm. That left Holiday Bowl with nothing but cash. MidCoast\npaid $3.4 million plus expenses for Holiday Bowl’s $4.2 million. To finance the transaction,\nMidCoast claimed it would borrow money from a company called Sequoia Capital. According\nto MidCoast, Holiday Bowl would then enter the debt-collection business, rapidly generating\nnew losses that would offset Holiday Bowl’s existing taxes.\n\n After the sale, MidCoast transferred Holiday Bowl to Sequoia in exchange for the\ncancellation of Sequoia’s loan and about $320,000 in cash. No one ever paid Holiday Bowl’s\noutstanding taxes, and the one-time bowling company dissolved in 2006.\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 4\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\n The Internal Revenue Service investigated MidCoast, uncovering the Holiday Bowl sale\nand about sixty similar transactions. That did not end well for MidCoast, Sequoia, and a law\nfirm, as a grand jury indicted several individuals associated with each of them. One defendant\npleaded guilty. Others fled the country. The government launched a civil collection proceeding\nagainst the Hawks in pursuit of Holiday Bowl’s unpaid taxes. The Tax Court concluded that\nSequoia’s loan to MidCoast was a sham and that Holiday Bowl had simply distributed cash to\nthe Hawks, who were liable to the government as Holiday Bowl’s fraudulent transferees. This\nappeal followed.\n\n II.\n\n To prevent delinquent individuals and corporations from evading taxes by transferring\ntheir assets to other entities, Congress enacted 26 U.S.C. § 6901. The statute permits the\ngovernment to pursue a delinquent taxpayer’s transferees in federal court. Once there, the\ngovernment stands in the position of a private creditor, and state law determines whether the\ntransferee must pay the taxpayer’s debts. See Comm’r v. Stern, 357 U.S. 39, 47 (1958).\n\n Two examples illustrate what § 6901 is getting at. Imagine Company A. It has\n$5 million in assets that have a basis (cost) of $1 million. Let’s say Company A sells its assets (a\nmanufacturing plant) to Company B for cash. At that point, Company A would owe federal\ntaxes on the $4 million gain generated by the sale. But suppose that Company A’s owners\ndecide not to pay Company A’s taxes. They instead pay themselves $5 million and simply let\nCompany A go belly-up, leaving Company A’s taxes unpaid. That leaves a classic transferee\nliability for the owners under § 6901.\n\n What happens, however, if the owners try to avoid that liability with an intermediary\ntransaction? The owners sell Company A to a foreign Company C for $5 million—the exact\namount of money that Company A has in the bank. This leaves the owners with $5 million, and\nCompany C with $5 million in Company A, and Company A still needing to pay its taxes.\nBecause Company C is outside the United States, the government might not be able to pursue\nCompany C as a transferee when it empties Company A’s coffers and no one pays A’s taxes.\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 5\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\nIn this setting, a court might decide that the sale of Company A had no economic substance to it,\nand that the owners really transferred Company A’s cash directly to themselves.\n\n Applied here, § 6901 prompts three questions: (1) Did Holiday Bowl owe any taxes?\n(2) Are the Hawks transferees of Holiday Bowl? (3) If so, are the Hawks liable to the\ngovernment under Tennessee’s fraudulent transfer statute? See Stern, 357 U.S. at 41.\n\n 1. The Initial Taxpayer. No one disputes that Holiday Bowl incurred taxes on the sale of\nits assets.\n\n 2. Transferees. The Hawks also amount to transferees. Section 6901(h) says that\ntransferees include a “donee, heir, legatee, devisee, and distributee.” The Hawks do not dispute\nthat Holiday Bowl transferred the horse farm to them under this definition. Nor could they. The\ncompany “distribute[d]” the property to the Hawks in exchange for stock.\n\n So too when it comes to the $3.4 million they received for the Holiday Bowl sale. But\nthis conclusion contains a complication or two. As the Hawks see it, they were “distributees” of\nfunds from MidCoast, not Holiday Bowl. As the government sees it, that transaction was a\nsham, as MidCoast simply paid the Hawks with Holiday Bowl’s money, making them\ndistributees of funds from Holiday Bowl all the same.\n\n All of this requires a digression about a doctrine, in truth a series of doctrines, by which\ncourts look to “the economic realities of the business deal” to determine whether a transaction\noccurred as the taxpayer labeled it. Summa Holdings, Inc. v. Comm’r, 848 F.3d 779, 785 (6th\nCir. 2017). While taxpayers are free to arrange their affairs to minimize taxes, they must do so\nin real ways—ways that give a transaction economic teeth and do not merely place tax-avoiding\nlabels on tax-owing transactions. Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935); Summa\nHoldings, 848 F.3d at 787. Separating unlawful tax shelters from lawful tax avoidance is always\ncontext specific and sometimes difficult to pin down.\n\n The Tax Court permissibly refused to respect several features of the form that MidCoast\nand the Hawks tried to place on this transaction. Start with the ostensibly independent financing\nof it: the Sequoia loan. The Tax Court found that the Hawks didn’t even get Sequoia’s\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 6\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\n(ostensibly) loaned funds. They got Holiday Bowl’s own funds, which were wired into an\nescrow account and promptly funneled back from the same escrow account to the Hawks. The\nquintessential explanation for refusing to respect the form of a transaction is that it amounts to a\ncharade. What purported to be real, a Sequoia loan to MidCoast to finance the sale, was not in\nfact real, as MidCoast paid for the transaction with Holiday Bowl funds.\n\n Even aside from tracing where the dollars and cents came from and where they\neventually went, the Sequoia loan looked like an impostor on paper. Under the terms of the deal,\nSequoia had no risk because Holiday Bowl’s own cash served as the collateral for the loan. The\nidea was that lenders traditionally require security for a loan. And this loan looked like it had\nsecurity. But an immediately repayable, cash-for-cash loan backed up by cash is not a traditional\nloan. Money is fungible. So is air. By getting a “loan” from Sequoia, MidCoast could access\ncash, which it then could immediately pay back with Holiday Bowl’s own money—in effect\nusing Holiday Bowl’s bank account at no risk to Sequoia. In this setting, the security was no\nsecurity at all.\n\n It gets worse. The parties didn’t sign most of the loan documents, behavior that does not\naccord with the way people usually transfer large pots of money. Interest and periodic payments\nare a classic hallmark of real loans. See Roth Steel Tube Co. v. Comm’r, 800 F.2d 625, 631 (6th\nCir. 1986). But Sequoia’s loan wouldn’t incur interest unless MidCoast defaulted. While\nSequoia did stand to make about $17,250 when MidCoast paid back the loan, this translated to\nannual interest of $6.3 million, nearly double what MidCoast borrowed. At dusk’s end, Holiday\nBowl distributed its money to the Hawks, in substance if not always in form, making them the\ncompany’s transferees.\n\n The problem by the way is not that the Hawks were trying to lower their taxes. No\nAmerican to our knowledge prefers a higher tax bill. There are other ways to express fealty to\nour country. The problem is that the transaction lacked economic substance; it was nothing but\nmisleading labels and distracting forms—trompe l’oeil from start to finish.\n\n Precedent, too, looks askance at what the Hawks and their advisors did. Over forty years\nago, this court faced a similar transaction, in which a shareholder sold a business holding only\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 7\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\ncash and tax liabilities to buyers who claimed—much like MidCoast—to be able to reduce the\nbusiness’s taxes based on existing business losses. The buyers borrowed the purchase price and\nimmediately liquidated the business. See Owens v. Comm’r, 568 F.2d 1233, 1236 (6th Cir.\n1977). In concluding that the transaction was a sleight-of-hand distribution to the original\nshareholder, Owens noted that “tax liabilities cannot be altered on the basis of parties exchanging\nthe most fungible commodity of all, cash.” Id. at 1240. Just so here.\n\n The Seventh Circuit reached a similar conclusion in a similar setting. The Feldman\nfamily owned and operated Woodside Ranch, an outdoor resort. See Feldman v. Comm’r, 779\nF.3d 448, 450 (7th Cir. 2015). As here, the Feldmans decided to sell the company’s assets for\ncash and incurred large capital gains taxes. Id. at 451. And as here, MidCoast entered the\npicture with a promise to “pay more for the shares than they were worth,” if you simply\nsubtracted the tax owed from the cash that Woodside Ranch had. Id. When Woodside never\npaid its taxes, the government went after the Feldmans.\n\n The Seventh Circuit concluded that the Woodside sale was in truth a distribution to the\nFeldmans. Id. at 456. Some aspects of that case, it is true, made it easier. MidCoast’s loan in\nthat case “was entirely undocumented.” Id. In this instance, MidCoast and Sequoia drew up\nloan documents, though they never signed most of them. And in Feldman, MidCoast didn’t sell\nthe business to the lender; it just immediately repaid the loan. Id. But the core of Feldman and\nour case remains the same: a cash swap that amounts to a distribution to the shareholders, not a\nreal sale.\n\n Because the Hawks were transferees under § 6901, the government may pursue them in\nfederal court. That leaves the question of liability under Tennessee law.\n\n 3. Liability Under Tennessee Law. Tennessee has adopted the Uniform Fraudulent\nTransfer Act, which provides remedies to creditors (like the United States) when insolvent\ndebtors fraudulently transfer assets to third parties. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-301 et seq. The\nAct treats a transfer as fraudulent “if the debtor made the transfer . . . without receiving a\nreasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer . . . and the debtor was insolvent at that\ntime or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer.” Id. § 66-3-306(a). The law\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 8\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\nprompts three inquiries of its own: Did the Holiday Bowl transaction count as a transfer? Did\nHoliday Bowl receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange? Did Holiday Bowl become\ninsolvent?\n\n First, for many of the same reasons the Holiday Bowl transaction amounts to a transfer to\nthe Hawks under federal law, it counts as a transfer from Holiday Bowl to the Hawks under\nTennessee law. Tennessee law defines a transfer broadly to include “every mode, direct or\nindirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an\nasset or an interest in an asset, and includes payment of money, release, lease, and creation of a\nlien or other encumbrance.” Id. § 66-3-302(12). Apt is the word “indirect.” Even if the Hawks\nreceived Sequoia’s money (which they didn’t), the Hawks still would have received Holiday\nBowl’s funds indirectly.\n\n Tennessee courts also consider the economic substance of the Holiday Bowl transaction.\nThe Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act incorporates traditional “principles of . . . equity.” Id.\n§ 66-3-311. And Tennessee courts have long relied on sham-transaction principles in settings\nlike this one. See, e.g., CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Trost, 333 S.W.3d 73, 88 (Tenn. 2010); M. & M.\nStamp Co. v. Harris, 368 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tenn. 1963). The Tennessee statute also directs that\nit “shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with\nrespect to the subject of this [statute] among states enacting it.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-312.\nAnd other courts have held that the sham-transaction principles apply to other States’ Uniform\nFraudulent Transfer Acts. See, e.g., Feldman, 779 F.3d at 459 (interpreting the Wisconsin\nstatute); In re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d 700, 708 (9th Cir. 2008) (interpreting the California\nstatute).\n\n Second, Holiday Bowl didn’t receive reasonably equivalent value for the horse farm or\nthe cash that the company transferred to the Hawks. The Act defines value as “property”\ntransferred or “an antecedent debt . . . secured.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-304(a). When the\nHawks exchanged stock for the horse farm, the transaction merely subtracted from Holiday\nBowl’s balance sheet. And Holiday Bowl got nothing when the Hawks received their $3.4\nmillion.\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 9\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\n Third, Holiday Bowl also became insolvent due to this transaction. After the Hawks\nreceived their cash back, Holiday Bowl had only about two-thirds of the money that it needed to\npay its outstanding taxes.\n\n Nancy Sue Hawk and Billy’s estate resist this conclusion on several grounds.\n\n They say that the Tennessee courts wouldn’t look to the reality of the transaction to\ndetermine what happened. CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Trost proves otherwise. 333 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn.\n2010). The Tennessee Supreme Court remanded a case at summary judgment to determine\nwhether a transaction was a sham. Id. at 88–90. While it’s true that one unpublished Tennessee\nCourt of Appeals case declared that “[n]o Tennessee court has applied the economic substance\ndoctrine,” the petitioners read too much into the comment. Niuklee, LLC v. Comm’r, Tenn.\nDep’t of Revenue, No. M2014-01644-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 6941593, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App.\nNov. 9, 2015). It’s clear that Tennessee courts have applied equitable principles to scrutinize the\neconomic realities of transactions in a variety of situations.\n\n The Hawks take issue with the Tax Court’s conclusion that they knew about MidCoast’s\nfraudulent scheme. But Tennessee courts look to the economic realities of the transaction\nregardless of whether the Hawks knew about the fraud. When it comes to constructive fraud,\nTennessee’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act doesn’t require the transferee to know about the\ndebtor’s misconduct. Instead, transferees who deal in good faith can offset their liability by\nwhatever they paid the debtor for the transferred asset—that is, by whatever money they added to\nthe pool available to creditors. But acting in good faith without more doesn’t preclude transferee\nliability. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-309(d).\n\n Some history shows why. The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act replaced an older model\nstatute, which had required that creditors prove transferees received an asset from a debtor\n“without a fair consideration.” Unif. Fraudulent Conveyance Act § 4 (Unif. Law Comm’n\n1918). The former Act defined “fair consideration” as the exchange of property “in good faith.”\nId. § 3. According to official comments to the new Fraudulent Transfer Act, the drafters of that\nstatute intentionally replaced the words “fair consideration” with “reasonably equivalent value”\nto eliminate any inquiry into the transferee’s intent when determining whether a transfer is\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 10\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\nconstructively fraudulent. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-3-305 cmt. 2, 66-3-306 cmt. 1; see also\nid. § 66-3-313 (directing courts to the official comments).\n\n Other courts have said that constructive fraud under the Fraudulent Transfer Act can be\nestablished without determining whether the transferee acted in good faith. See Feldman,\n779 F.3d at 459–60; Weintraut v. Comm’r, 112 T.C.M. (CCH) 122, 2016 WL 4040793, at *72\n(T.C. 2016); Thompson v. Hanson, 239 P.3d 537, 541 (Wash. 2009); see also Shockley v.\nComm’r, 872 F.3d 1235, 1254 n.17 (11th Cir. 2017).\n\n As for cases in which the recharacterization of the transaction and thus constructive fraud\nturned on showing that the transferees knew about the sketchiness of the tax shelter, they either\napplied the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act or relied on cases that interpreted the older Act.\nSee, e.g., Diebold Found., Inc. v. Comm’r, 736 F.3d 172, 186 (2d Cir. 2013) (interpreting\nUniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act); Salus Mundi Found. v. Comm’r, 776 F.3d 1010, 1020\n(9th Cir. 2014) (following Diebold to interpret the same Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act);\nStarnes v. Comm’r, 680 F.3d 417, 433 n.10 (4th Cir. 2012) (imposing a knowledge requirement\nin a Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act case while citing a Fraudulent Conveyance Act case); see\nalso Frank Sawyer Tr. v. Comm’r, 712 F.3d 597, 605 (1st Cir. 2013) (applying state-specific\nequity law to interpret the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act).\n\n The bottom line? The Hawks’ “extensive emphasis on their due diligence and lack of\nknowledge of illegality” doesn’t shield them from the sham nature of the transaction and absolve\nthem of transferee liability. Feldman, 779 F.3d at 460. That’s the same conclusion the Seventh\nCircuit reached in Feldman, another MidCoast case, one that applied Wisconsin law and its\nUniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Id.\n\n Switching gears, the Hawks claim that Sequoia’s loan wasn’t a sham, pointing to\nprovisions in the deal documents that ostensibly prevented the escrow agent from wiring Holiday\nBowl’s cash directly to them. But one point of the sham-transaction doctrine is to look at what\nhappened in fact, not what happened on paper.\n\n To similar effect, the Hawks claim that the lack of signatures on the loan documents did\nnot delegitimate the loan. That may be true. But that truth does not take away from the reality\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 11\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\nthat prudent lenders in traditional transactions normally do not let such papers go unsigned or the\nreality that sloppiness often arises when no risk exists. So it was with this “loan.”\n\n The Hawks claim that MidCoast’s $17,250 payment to Sequoia constituted a loan fee,\nproving that there was economic substance to the loan. The better reading is the one the Tax\nCourt gave: that the fee compensated Sequoia for participating in the scheme. Even on its own\nterms, the loan didn’t generate interest unless MidCoast defaulted, not a traditional way to\ncalculate loan interest. A conventional approach to calculating interest would have made the\n$17,250 amount usurious in the extreme—about a 183% annual rate.\n\n The Hawks persist that a series of transactions shows that Sequoia made a real loan.\nOver a week before the Holiday Bowl sale, Sequoia placed $35 million into a separate money\nmarket account with the same escrow agent. The day after the Holiday Bowl sale, the agent\nmoved much of that money into the escrow account used for the Holiday Bowl transaction. The\nescrow agent then transferred $4 million to a company called Delta Trading Partners, at the\npurported “instructions of Holiday Bowl’s newly appointed president.” J.A. 3 at 455.\n\n But none of this requires overturning the Tax Court’s finding that the transaction lacked\nmeat on the bones. For one thing, the Tax Court found the escrow agent’s records unreliable,\nand the Hawks admit that some of the handwritten ledgers were “incorrect” and conflicted with\ntyped ledgers. Reply Br. 9. For another, the Hawks didn’t receive a portion of the $35 million.\nAs shown above, they received Holiday Bowl’s money in the escrow account. For still another,\neven if the Sequoia loan had occurred, that doesn’t change the underlying reality of what\nhappened. From an economic standpoint, Sequoia could have sent the Hawks Sequoia’s money\nand then transferred Holiday Bowl’s cash to Delta Trading Partners. Or Sequoia could have sent\nthe Hawks Holiday Bowl’s funds and used its own money to pay Delta Trading Partners. Either\nway, Sequoia’s “loan” bore no risk, the Hawks received the same amount, and so did Delta\nTrading Partners.\n\n The Hawks take aim at the Tax Court’s conclusion that this transaction rendered Holiday\nBowl insolvent. They attempt to argue that the escrow agent didn’t wire Holiday Bowl’s money\nto them. Escrow accounts like this one often hold funds for more than one client at once. The\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 12\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\nHawks encourage us to use first-in-first-out accounting and conclude that they received other\nclients’ funds unrelated to the Holiday Bowl sale, leaving much of Holiday Bowl’s money\nuntouched in the escrow account. Whatever the value of the first-in-first-out accounting method\nto disentangle intermingled assets, however, the Tax Court could identify which deposits and\npayments corresponded to the Holiday Bowl transaction. No convincing basis for overturning\nthat finding has emerged. What’s more, even if we apply first-in-first-out accounting, the\nproblem does not go away. If Holiday Bowl benefited from the transfer of other clients’ money,\nit would remain on the hook to the true owners, making Holiday Bowl insolvent all the same.\n\n Along the same lines, the Hawks point to Sequoia’s post-sale movement of money into\nthe escrow account and the $4 million wire to Delta Trading Partners as indicating that Holiday\nBowl controlled $4 million before Sequoia liquidated the company. But that assumes Sequoia’s\nloan to MidCoast (and its other attempts to shift funds) were not shams or devoid of economic\nsubstance. The assumption does not hold.\n\n Last of all, the Hawks point to Alterman v. Commissioner, a MidCoast case in which the\nTax Court refused to collapse the transaction under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.\n110 T.C.M. (CCH) 507, 2015 WL 7753344, at *23 (T.C. 2015). But the Tax Court in Alterman\nrequired the government to prove that the sellers knew about the fraud based on another Tax\nCourt decision applying prior Conveyance Act case law. Id. at *17. That ignored the purpose of\nconstructive fraud under the Transfer Act: to remove knowledge from the equation.\n\n ***\n\n For those readers still with us, you might wonder: Was there a way to make this\ntax-reduction strategy work? Was it ever possible for MidCoast to offset Holiday Bowl’s taxes\nwith net operating losses, say by making the Sequoia loan a kosher one and dotting another “i”\nand crossing another “t” in the underlying transactions? The answer is “maybe” in the abstract\nand “not likely” here.\n\n As one treatise puts it, “Congress, with assistance from the courts, has constructed a\nformidable defense against taxpayer efforts to traffic in net operating losses and other corporate\ntax benefits.” Boris I. Bittker & James S. Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 13\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\nShareholders § 14.02 (7th ed. 2019). The Internal Revenue Code prevents a company with pre-\nexisting losses from purchasing a company with pre-existing gains and canceling the two out\nwithin five years of the sale. See 26 U.S.C. § 384; Bittker & Eustice, supra, § 14.45.\n\n That’s why MidCoast told the Hawks that it would operate Holiday Bowl as a\ndebt-collection business and generate new losses within Holiday Bowl—a different strategy from\nthe one the broker originally proposed. For this scheme to eliminate Holiday Bowl’s 2003 taxes,\nit appears, the new losses needed to arise between the November 2003 sale and the end of the\nyear. After hearing the evidence, the Tax Court concluded that “[i]t was not plausible” that a\nMidCoast-owned Holiday Bowl could ever incur the necessary “offsetting expenses” in time.\nJ.A. 3 at 481.\n\n That reality and others too separate this case from Summa Holdings, Inc. v.\nCommissioner, 848 F.3d 779 (6th Cir. 2017). Those taxpayers sought to take advantage of two\ninvestment vehicles—a “domestic international sales corporation” and a Roth IRA. The former\nallows an exporter to shelter certain income from corporate tax. Id. at 782. The latter allows\nindividuals to save limited amounts tax free. Id. at 783. Done together, a Roth IRA owning\nshares in a domestic international sales corporation permits taxpayers to transfer (and potentially\ngrow) many assets in their Roth IRAs and spare themselves considerable taxes. Id.\n\n That’s exactly what the Summa Holdings taxpayers did. Citing the substance-over-form\ndoctrine, however, the Commissioner claimed authority to ignore the form of the legislatively\napproved transactions. We disagreed because “[the] Internal Revenue Code allowed” the\ntaxpayers “to do what they did.” Id. at 784. Courts (and agencies) must respect a statute’s text,\nand the Commissioner’s revision took the substance-over-form doctrine a “step too far.” Id. at\n785. The Commissioner, we acknowledged, may “honor the fiscal realities of what taxpayers\nhave done over the form in which they have done it.” Id. But neither the Commissioner in\nparticular nor the Executive Branch in general may rewrite “the meaning of statutes” whenever it\ndislikes the law. Id.\n\n Think about it. Everyone in Summa Holdings agreed that the plain terms of the relevant\nstatutes permitted the transaction. Id. at 784. Not even Chevron permits government agencies to\n\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 14\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\n\nignore the plain text of a statute. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S.\n837, 842–43 (1984). What, then, made the Internal Revenue Service think it could ignore the\nplain text of a statute—one that other agencies could not override under Chevron—under the\nsubstance-over-form doctrine? This version of the doctrine makes Chevron look like a modest\nassumption of executive power. When all was said and done, Summa Holdings was a case in\nwhich the taxpayers forced the government to play it straight—to make it respect the form and\nsubstance of the laws Congress wrote.\n\n That leaves two sides to the substance and form coin. On one side is Summa Holdings.\nIf Congress authorizes taxpayers to do something—in Summa Holdings, employing\nCode-compliant “shell corporations . . . that have no economic substance”—the Commissioner\ncan’t override the constitutional forces of bicameralism and presentment. Summa Holdings,\n898 F.3d at 786. On the other side is the Hawks’ case. The government isn’t seeking to ignore\nthe form of the Code today. It’s enforcing the statutes as written. No one disputes that Holiday\nBowl owed taxes that the Code imposes. The Code places substantial limits on even the above-\nboard version of this transaction, limits that foreclosed MidCoast’s ability to offset Holiday\nBowl’s pre-existing gains. What’s more, § 6901 provides a mechanism for the government to\npursue a delinquent taxpayer’s assets in cases just like this one. Tennessee law seeks a similar\nend. All in all, the Commissioner isn’t disregarding statutory text in the name of economic\nsubstance; he’s honoring the written word and the economic realities of this transaction.\n\n We affirm.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: BILLY F. HAWK, JR., GST NON-EXEMPT MARITAL TRUST, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Trustees; Estate of Billy F. Hawk, Junior, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Executors; Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Exempt Marital Trust, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Trustees; Nancy Sue Hawk, Transferee, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-15\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0092p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n BILLY F. HAWK, JR., GST NON-EXEMPT MARITAL ┐\\n TRUST, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and │\\n Regions Bank, Co-Trustees; ESTATE OF BILLY F. │\\n HAWK, JUNIOR, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk │\\n and Regions Bank, Co-Executors; BILLY F. HAWK, JR., │\\n GST EXEMPT MARITAL TRUST, Trustee, Transferee, > No. 18-1534\\n │\\n Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Trustees;\\n │\\n NANCY SUE HAWK, Transferee,\\n │\\n Petitioners-Appellants, │\\n │\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, │\\n Respondent-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Tax Court;\\n Nos. 30024-09; 30025-09; 30026-09; 30515-09—Joseph R. Goeke, Judge.\\n\\n Argued: April 30, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 15, 2019\\n\\n Before: GUY, SUTTON, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\n\\nARGUED: J. Eric Butler, LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C.,\\nKnoxville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Arthur T. Catterall, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT\\nOF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: J. Eric Butler, Katherine Sanford\\nGoodner, LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C., Knoxville, Tennessee,\\nAshley Hodges Morgan, LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C., Memphis,\\nTennessee, David S. Garbett, Brian P. Yates, GARBETT, ALLEN & ROZA, P.A., Miami,\\nFlorida, John P. Konvalinka, GRANT, KONVALINKA & HARRISON, P.C., Chattanooga,\\nTennessee, for Appellants. Arthur T. Catterall, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, Richard Caldarone,\\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 2\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. After Billy Hawk died in 2000, his wife Nancy Sue decided to\\nsell the family bowling business, Holiday Bowl. With the help of lawyers and accountants, she\\nmade a deal with MidCoast, a company that claimed an interest in acquiring companies with\\ncorporate tax liabilities that it could set off against its net-operating losses. Holiday Bowl first\\nsold its assets—bowling alleys—to Bowl New England, receiving $4.2 million in cash and\\ngenerating about $1 million in federal taxes. After that, Nancy Sue and Billy’s estate sold\\nHoliday Bowl to MidCoast for about $3.4 million, in essence exchanging one pile of cash for\\nanother minus the tax debt MidCoast agreed to pay. But MidCoast never paid the taxes. The\\nUnited States filed this transferee-liability action against Nancy Sue Hawk and Billy Hawk’s\\nestate to recover Holiday Bowl’s unpaid taxes. The Tax Court ruled for the government,\\nconcluding that the Hawks were transferees of a delinquent taxpayer under federal law and\\npermitting the government to recover the unpaid taxes from the Hawks under Tennessee law.\\nWe affirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n When shareholders sell a privately held corporation, they have a range of options. One is\\nan asset sale, in which the corporation sells its assets (e.g., the bowling alleys), pays a tax on the\\ngain, and distributes what’s left to the shareholders. In this setting, the Commissioner taxes the\\ncorporation upon the sale of the assets and taxes the shareholders when they receive their\\ndistributions.\\n\\n Another option is a stock sale, in which the shareholders sell their stock to a third party.\\nBecause the corporation never sells its assets, the transaction doesn’t trigger corporate tax, and\\nthe original shareholders pay only their individual income taxes. If the new owners dispose of\\nthe corporate assets down the road, however, the corporation will incur taxes then. Buyers in a\\nstock sale often pay less to account for future taxes they must pay.\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 3\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\n After Billy Hawk’s death in 2000, Nancy Sue owned almost a fifth of the company’s\\nstock and her husband’s estate owned the remainder. Billy and Nancy Sue’s two sons operated\\nthe two bowling alleys awhile. But that didn’t work. By 2002, she realized she needed to sell\\nHoliday Bowl. She chose an asset sale to Bowl New England. The sale left Holiday Bowl with\\n$4.2 million in cash and left the company owing about $1 million in federal income taxes and\\nabout $200,000 in state taxes. Holiday Bowl also owned some real property, a family horse farm\\nthat Nancy Sue wanted to keep, valued at $777,000.\\n\\n Trying to lower the corporate taxes triggered by the transaction, the Hawks’ broker\\napproached their attorney with information about a company called MidCoast that had\\n“tremendous tax-loss carry-forwards.” J.A. 3 at 797. If MidCoast bought Holiday Bowl, the\\nbroker advertised, Holiday Bowl would not need to pay corporate taxes on the asset sale. As a\\nresult, MidCoast promised to pay the Hawks more than Holiday Bowl’s actual value—what\\nwould have been its cash on hand minus outstanding taxes. Nancy Sue Hawk and the estate\\nstood to keep an extra $200,000 to $300,000 by structuring the transaction in this way.\\nMidCoast purported to offer Holiday Bowl a way to realize the best attributes of an asset sale\\n(the higher sale price of the assets) and a stock sale (no corporate-level tax). In closing his\\nrecommendation, the broker, warily but not warily enough, said: “[I]f it seems too good to be\\ntrue, it probably is. But maybe this is the exception.” Id. at 798.\\n\\n The Hawks proceeded to enjoy what looked like a free lunch. Under the purchase\\nagreement, the Hawks sold Holiday Bowl some of their shares in exchange for the company’s\\nremaining property, the horse farm. That left Holiday Bowl with nothing but cash. MidCoast\\npaid $3.4 million plus expenses for Holiday Bowl’s $4.2 million. To finance the transaction,\\nMidCoast claimed it would borrow money from a company called Sequoia Capital. According\\nto MidCoast, Holiday Bowl would then enter the debt-collection business, rapidly generating\\nnew losses that would offset Holiday Bowl’s existing taxes.\\n\\n After the sale, MidCoast transferred Holiday Bowl to Sequoia in exchange for the\\ncancellation of Sequoia’s loan and about $320,000 in cash. No one ever paid Holiday Bowl’s\\noutstanding taxes, and the one-time bowling company dissolved in 2006.\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 4\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\n The Internal Revenue Service investigated MidCoast, uncovering the Holiday Bowl sale\\nand about sixty similar transactions. That did not end well for MidCoast, Sequoia, and a law\\nfirm, as a grand jury indicted several individuals associated with each of them. One defendant\\npleaded guilty. Others fled the country. The government launched a civil collection proceeding\\nagainst the Hawks in pursuit of Holiday Bowl’s unpaid taxes. The Tax Court concluded that\\nSequoia’s loan to MidCoast was a sham and that Holiday Bowl had simply distributed cash to\\nthe Hawks, who were liable to the government as Holiday Bowl’s fraudulent transferees. This\\nappeal followed.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n To prevent delinquent individuals and corporations from evading taxes by transferring\\ntheir assets to other entities, Congress enacted 26 U.S.C. § 6901. The statute permits the\\ngovernment to pursue a delinquent taxpayer’s transferees in federal court. Once there, the\\ngovernment stands in the position of a private creditor, and state law determines whether the\\ntransferee must pay the taxpayer’s debts. See Comm’r v. Stern, 357 U.S. 39, 47 (1958).\\n\\n Two examples illustrate what § 6901 is getting at. Imagine Company A. It has\\n$5 million in assets that have a basis (cost) of $1 million. Let’s say Company A sells its assets (a\\nmanufacturing plant) to Company B for cash. At that point, Company A would owe federal\\ntaxes on the $4 million gain generated by the sale. But suppose that Company A’s owners\\ndecide not to pay Company A’s taxes. They instead pay themselves $5 million and simply let\\nCompany A go belly-up, leaving Company A’s taxes unpaid. That leaves a classic transferee\\nliability for the owners under § 6901.\\n\\n What happens, however, if the owners try to avoid that liability with an intermediary\\ntransaction? The owners sell Company A to a foreign Company C for $5 million—the exact\\namount of money that Company A has in the bank. This leaves the owners with $5 million, and\\nCompany C with $5 million in Company A, and Company A still needing to pay its taxes.\\nBecause Company C is outside the United States, the government might not be able to pursue\\nCompany C as a transferee when it empties Company A’s coffers and no one pays A’s taxes.\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 5\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nIn this setting, a court might decide that the sale of Company A had no economic substance to it,\\nand that the owners really transferred Company A’s cash directly to themselves.\\n\\n Applied here, § 6901 prompts three questions: (1) Did Holiday Bowl owe any taxes?\\n(2) Are the Hawks transferees of Holiday Bowl? (3) If so, are the Hawks liable to the\\ngovernment under Tennessee’s fraudulent transfer statute? See Stern, 357 U.S. at 41.\\n\\n 1. The Initial Taxpayer. No one disputes that Holiday Bowl incurred taxes on the sale of\\nits assets.\\n\\n 2. Transferees. The Hawks also amount to transferees. Section 6901(h) says that\\ntransferees include a “donee, heir, legatee, devisee, and distributee.” The Hawks do not dispute\\nthat Holiday Bowl transferred the horse farm to them under this definition. Nor could they. The\\ncompany “distribute[d]” the property to the Hawks in exchange for stock.\\n\\n So too when it comes to the $3.4 million they received for the Holiday Bowl sale. But\\nthis conclusion contains a complication or two. As the Hawks see it, they were “distributees” of\\nfunds from MidCoast, not Holiday Bowl. As the government sees it, that transaction was a\\nsham, as MidCoast simply paid the Hawks with Holiday Bowl’s money, making them\\ndistributees of funds from Holiday Bowl all the same.\\n\\n All of this requires a digression about a doctrine, in truth a series of doctrines, by which\\ncourts look to “the economic realities of the business deal” to determine whether a transaction\\noccurred as the taxpayer labeled it. Summa Holdings, Inc. v. Comm’r, 848 F.3d 779, 785 (6th\\nCir. 2017). While taxpayers are free to arrange their affairs to minimize taxes, they must do so\\nin real ways—ways that give a transaction economic teeth and do not merely place tax-avoiding\\nlabels on tax-owing transactions. Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935); Summa\\nHoldings, 848 F.3d at 787. Separating unlawful tax shelters from lawful tax avoidance is always\\ncontext specific and sometimes difficult to pin down.\\n\\n The Tax Court permissibly refused to respect several features of the form that MidCoast\\nand the Hawks tried to place on this transaction. Start with the ostensibly independent financing\\nof it: the Sequoia loan. The Tax Court found that the Hawks didn’t even get Sequoia’s\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 6\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\n(ostensibly) loaned funds. They got Holiday Bowl’s own funds, which were wired into an\\nescrow account and promptly funneled back from the same escrow account to the Hawks. The\\nquintessential explanation for refusing to respect the form of a transaction is that it amounts to a\\ncharade. What purported to be real, a Sequoia loan to MidCoast to finance the sale, was not in\\nfact real, as MidCoast paid for the transaction with Holiday Bowl funds.\\n\\n Even aside from tracing where the dollars and cents came from and where they\\neventually went, the Sequoia loan looked like an impostor on paper. Under the terms of the deal,\\nSequoia had no risk because Holiday Bowl’s own cash served as the collateral for the loan. The\\nidea was that lenders traditionally require security for a loan. And this loan looked like it had\\nsecurity. But an immediately repayable, cash-for-cash loan backed up by cash is not a traditional\\nloan. Money is fungible. So is air. By getting a “loan” from Sequoia, MidCoast could access\\ncash, which it then could immediately pay back with Holiday Bowl’s own money—in effect\\nusing Holiday Bowl’s bank account at no risk to Sequoia. In this setting, the security was no\\nsecurity at all.\\n\\n It gets worse. The parties didn’t sign most of the loan documents, behavior that does not\\naccord with the way people usually transfer large pots of money. Interest and periodic payments\\nare a classic hallmark of real loans. See Roth Steel Tube Co. v. Comm’r, 800 F.2d 625, 631 (6th\\nCir. 1986). But Sequoia’s loan wouldn’t incur interest unless MidCoast defaulted. While\\nSequoia did stand to make about $17,250 when MidCoast paid back the loan, this translated to\\nannual interest of $6.3 million, nearly double what MidCoast borrowed. At dusk’s end, Holiday\\nBowl distributed its money to the Hawks, in substance if not always in form, making them the\\ncompany’s transferees.\\n\\n The problem by the way is not that the Hawks were trying to lower their taxes. No\\nAmerican to our knowledge prefers a higher tax bill. There are other ways to express fealty to\\nour country. The problem is that the transaction lacked economic substance; it was nothing but\\nmisleading labels and distracting forms—trompe l’oeil from start to finish.\\n\\n Precedent, too, looks askance at what the Hawks and their advisors did. Over forty years\\nago, this court faced a similar transaction, in which a shareholder sold a business holding only\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 7\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\ncash and tax liabilities to buyers who claimed—much like MidCoast—to be able to reduce the\\nbusiness’s taxes based on existing business losses. The buyers borrowed the purchase price and\\nimmediately liquidated the business. See Owens v. Comm’r, 568 F.2d 1233, 1236 (6th Cir.\\n1977). In concluding that the transaction was a sleight-of-hand distribution to the original\\nshareholder, Owens noted that “tax liabilities cannot be altered on the basis of parties exchanging\\nthe most fungible commodity of all, cash.” Id. at 1240. Just so here.\\n\\n The Seventh Circuit reached a similar conclusion in a similar setting. The Feldman\\nfamily owned and operated Woodside Ranch, an outdoor resort. See Feldman v. Comm’r, 779\\nF.3d 448, 450 (7th Cir. 2015). As here, the Feldmans decided to sell the company’s assets for\\ncash and incurred large capital gains taxes. Id. at 451. And as here, MidCoast entered the\\npicture with a promise to “pay more for the shares than they were worth,” if you simply\\nsubtracted the tax owed from the cash that Woodside Ranch had. Id. When Woodside never\\npaid its taxes, the government went after the Feldmans.\\n\\n The Seventh Circuit concluded that the Woodside sale was in truth a distribution to the\\nFeldmans. Id. at 456. Some aspects of that case, it is true, made it easier. MidCoast’s loan in\\nthat case “was entirely undocumented.” Id. In this instance, MidCoast and Sequoia drew up\\nloan documents, though they never signed most of them. And in Feldman, MidCoast didn’t sell\\nthe business to the lender; it just immediately repaid the loan. Id. But the core of Feldman and\\nour case remains the same: a cash swap that amounts to a distribution to the shareholders, not a\\nreal sale.\\n\\n Because the Hawks were transferees under § 6901, the government may pursue them in\\nfederal court. That leaves the question of liability under Tennessee law.\\n\\n 3. Liability Under Tennessee Law. Tennessee has adopted the Uniform Fraudulent\\nTransfer Act, which provides remedies to creditors (like the United States) when insolvent\\ndebtors fraudulently transfer assets to third parties. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-301 et seq. The\\nAct treats a transfer as fraudulent “if the debtor made the transfer . . . without receiving a\\nreasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer . . . and the debtor was insolvent at that\\ntime or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer.” Id. § 66-3-306(a). The law\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 8\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nprompts three inquiries of its own: Did the Holiday Bowl transaction count as a transfer? Did\\nHoliday Bowl receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange? Did Holiday Bowl become\\ninsolvent?\\n\\n First, for many of the same reasons the Holiday Bowl transaction amounts to a transfer to\\nthe Hawks under federal law, it counts as a transfer from Holiday Bowl to the Hawks under\\nTennessee law. Tennessee law defines a transfer broadly to include “every mode, direct or\\nindirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an\\nasset or an interest in an asset, and includes payment of money, release, lease, and creation of a\\nlien or other encumbrance.” Id. § 66-3-302(12). Apt is the word “indirect.” Even if the Hawks\\nreceived Sequoia’s money (which they didn’t), the Hawks still would have received Holiday\\nBowl’s funds indirectly.\\n\\n Tennessee courts also consider the economic substance of the Holiday Bowl transaction.\\nThe Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act incorporates traditional “principles of . . . equity.” Id.\\n§ 66-3-311. And Tennessee courts have long relied on sham-transaction principles in settings\\nlike this one. See, e.g., CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Trost, 333 S.W.3d 73, 88 (Tenn. 2010); M. & M.\\nStamp Co. v. Harris, 368 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tenn. 1963). The Tennessee statute also directs that\\nit “shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with\\nrespect to the subject of this [statute] among states enacting it.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-312.\\nAnd other courts have held that the sham-transaction principles apply to other States’ Uniform\\nFraudulent Transfer Acts. See, e.g., Feldman, 779 F.3d at 459 (interpreting the Wisconsin\\nstatute); In re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d 700, 708 (9th Cir. 2008) (interpreting the California\\nstatute).\\n\\n Second, Holiday Bowl didn’t receive reasonably equivalent value for the horse farm or\\nthe cash that the company transferred to the Hawks. The Act defines value as “property”\\ntransferred or “an antecedent debt . . . secured.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-304(a). When the\\nHawks exchanged stock for the horse farm, the transaction merely subtracted from Holiday\\nBowl’s balance sheet. And Holiday Bowl got nothing when the Hawks received their $3.4\\nmillion.\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 9\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\n Third, Holiday Bowl also became insolvent due to this transaction. After the Hawks\\nreceived their cash back, Holiday Bowl had only about two-thirds of the money that it needed to\\npay its outstanding taxes.\\n\\n Nancy Sue Hawk and Billy’s estate resist this conclusion on several grounds.\\n\\n They say that the Tennessee courts wouldn’t look to the reality of the transaction to\\ndetermine what happened. CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Trost proves otherwise. 333 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn.\\n2010). The Tennessee Supreme Court remanded a case at summary judgment to determine\\nwhether a transaction was a sham. Id. at 88–90. While it’s true that one unpublished Tennessee\\nCourt of Appeals case declared that “[n]o Tennessee court has applied the economic substance\\ndoctrine,” the petitioners read too much into the comment. Niuklee, LLC v. Comm’r, Tenn.\\nDep’t of Revenue, No. M2014-01644-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 6941593, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App.\\nNov. 9, 2015). It’s clear that Tennessee courts have applied equitable principles to scrutinize the\\neconomic realities of transactions in a variety of situations.\\n\\n The Hawks take issue with the Tax Court’s conclusion that they knew about MidCoast’s\\nfraudulent scheme. But Tennessee courts look to the economic realities of the transaction\\nregardless of whether the Hawks knew about the fraud. When it comes to constructive fraud,\\nTennessee’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act doesn’t require the transferee to know about the\\ndebtor’s misconduct. Instead, transferees who deal in good faith can offset their liability by\\nwhatever they paid the debtor for the transferred asset—that is, by whatever money they added to\\nthe pool available to creditors. But acting in good faith without more doesn’t preclude transferee\\nliability. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-309(d).\\n\\n Some history shows why. The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act replaced an older model\\nstatute, which had required that creditors prove transferees received an asset from a debtor\\n“without a fair consideration.” Unif. Fraudulent Conveyance Act § 4 (Unif. Law Comm’n\\n1918). The former Act defined “fair consideration” as the exchange of property “in good faith.”\\nId. § 3. According to official comments to the new Fraudulent Transfer Act, the drafters of that\\nstatute intentionally replaced the words “fair consideration” with “reasonably equivalent value”\\nto eliminate any inquiry into the transferee’s intent when determining whether a transfer is\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 10\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nconstructively fraudulent. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-3-305 cmt. 2, 66-3-306 cmt. 1; see also\\nid. § 66-3-313 (directing courts to the official comments).\\n\\n Other courts have said that constructive fraud under the Fraudulent Transfer Act can be\\nestablished without determining whether the transferee acted in good faith. See Feldman,\\n779 F.3d at 459–60; Weintraut v. Comm’r, 112 T.C.M. (CCH) 122, 2016 WL 4040793, at *72\\n(T.C. 2016); Thompson v. Hanson, 239 P.3d 537, 541 (Wash. 2009); see also Shockley v.\\nComm’r, 872 F.3d 1235, 1254 n.17 (11th Cir. 2017).\\n\\n As for cases in which the recharacterization of the transaction and thus constructive fraud\\nturned on showing that the transferees knew about the sketchiness of the tax shelter, they either\\napplied the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act or relied on cases that interpreted the older Act.\\nSee, e.g., Diebold Found., Inc. v. Comm’r, 736 F.3d 172, 186 (2d Cir. 2013) (interpreting\\nUniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act); Salus Mundi Found. v. Comm’r, 776 F.3d 1010, 1020\\n(9th Cir. 2014) (following Diebold to interpret the same Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act);\\nStarnes v. Comm’r, 680 F.3d 417, 433 n.10 (4th Cir. 2012) (imposing a knowledge requirement\\nin a Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act case while citing a Fraudulent Conveyance Act case); see\\nalso Frank Sawyer Tr. v. Comm’r, 712 F.3d 597, 605 (1st Cir. 2013) (applying state-specific\\nequity law to interpret the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act).\\n\\n The bottom line? The Hawks’ “extensive emphasis on their due diligence and lack of\\nknowledge of illegality” doesn’t shield them from the sham nature of the transaction and absolve\\nthem of transferee liability. Feldman, 779 F.3d at 460. That’s the same conclusion the Seventh\\nCircuit reached in Feldman, another MidCoast case, one that applied Wisconsin law and its\\nUniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Id.\\n\\n Switching gears, the Hawks claim that Sequoia’s loan wasn’t a sham, pointing to\\nprovisions in the deal documents that ostensibly prevented the escrow agent from wiring Holiday\\nBowl’s cash directly to them. But one point of the sham-transaction doctrine is to look at what\\nhappened in fact, not what happened on paper.\\n\\n To similar effect, the Hawks claim that the lack of signatures on the loan documents did\\nnot delegitimate the loan. That may be true. But that truth does not take away from the reality\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 11\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nthat prudent lenders in traditional transactions normally do not let such papers go unsigned or the\\nreality that sloppiness often arises when no risk exists. So it was with this “loan.”\\n\\n The Hawks claim that MidCoast’s $17,250 payment to Sequoia constituted a loan fee,\\nproving that there was economic substance to the loan. The better reading is the one the Tax\\nCourt gave: that the fee compensated Sequoia for participating in the scheme. Even on its own\\nterms, the loan didn’t generate interest unless MidCoast defaulted, not a traditional way to\\ncalculate loan interest. A conventional approach to calculating interest would have made the\\n$17,250 amount usurious in the extreme—about a 183% annual rate.\\n\\n The Hawks persist that a series of transactions shows that Sequoia made a real loan.\\nOver a week before the Holiday Bowl sale, Sequoia placed $35 million into a separate money\\nmarket account with the same escrow agent. The day after the Holiday Bowl sale, the agent\\nmoved much of that money into the escrow account used for the Holiday Bowl transaction. The\\nescrow agent then transferred $4 million to a company called Delta Trading Partners, at the\\npurported “instructions of Holiday Bowl’s newly appointed president.” J.A. 3 at 455.\\n\\n But none of this requires overturning the Tax Court’s finding that the transaction lacked\\nmeat on the bones. For one thing, the Tax Court found the escrow agent’s records unreliable,\\nand the Hawks admit that some of the handwritten ledgers were “incorrect” and conflicted with\\ntyped ledgers. Reply Br. 9. For another, the Hawks didn’t receive a portion of the $35 million.\\nAs shown above, they received Holiday Bowl’s money in the escrow account. For still another,\\neven if the Sequoia loan had occurred, that doesn’t change the underlying reality of what\\nhappened. From an economic standpoint, Sequoia could have sent the Hawks Sequoia’s money\\nand then transferred Holiday Bowl’s cash to Delta Trading Partners. Or Sequoia could have sent\\nthe Hawks Holiday Bowl’s funds and used its own money to pay Delta Trading Partners. Either\\nway, Sequoia’s “loan” bore no risk, the Hawks received the same amount, and so did Delta\\nTrading Partners.\\n\\n The Hawks take aim at the Tax Court’s conclusion that this transaction rendered Holiday\\nBowl insolvent. They attempt to argue that the escrow agent didn’t wire Holiday Bowl’s money\\nto them. Escrow accounts like this one often hold funds for more than one client at once. The\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 12\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nHawks encourage us to use first-in-first-out accounting and conclude that they received other\\nclients’ funds unrelated to the Holiday Bowl sale, leaving much of Holiday Bowl’s money\\nuntouched in the escrow account. Whatever the value of the first-in-first-out accounting method\\nto disentangle intermingled assets, however, the Tax Court could identify which deposits and\\npayments corresponded to the Holiday Bowl transaction. No convincing basis for overturning\\nthat finding has emerged. What’s more, even if we apply first-in-first-out accounting, the\\nproblem does not go away. If Holiday Bowl benefited from the transfer of other clients’ money,\\nit would remain on the hook to the true owners, making Holiday Bowl insolvent all the same.\\n\\n Along the same lines, the Hawks point to Sequoia’s post-sale movement of money into\\nthe escrow account and the $4 million wire to Delta Trading Partners as indicating that Holiday\\nBowl controlled $4 million before Sequoia liquidated the company. But that assumes Sequoia’s\\nloan to MidCoast (and its other attempts to shift funds) were not shams or devoid of economic\\nsubstance. The assumption does not hold.\\n\\n Last of all, the Hawks point to Alterman v. Commissioner, a MidCoast case in which the\\nTax Court refused to collapse the transaction under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.\\n110 T.C.M. (CCH) 507, 2015 WL 7753344, at *23 (T.C. 2015). But the Tax Court in Alterman\\nrequired the government to prove that the sellers knew about the fraud based on another Tax\\nCourt decision applying prior Conveyance Act case law. Id. at *17. That ignored the purpose of\\nconstructive fraud under the Transfer Act: to remove knowledge from the equation.\\n\\n ***\\n\\n For those readers still with us, you might wonder: Was there a way to make this\\ntax-reduction strategy work? Was it ever possible for MidCoast to offset Holiday Bowl’s taxes\\nwith net operating losses, say by making the Sequoia loan a kosher one and dotting another “i”\\nand crossing another “t” in the underlying transactions? The answer is “maybe” in the abstract\\nand “not likely” here.\\n\\n As one treatise puts it, “Congress, with assistance from the courts, has constructed a\\nformidable defense against taxpayer efforts to traffic in net operating losses and other corporate\\ntax benefits.” Boris I. Bittker & James S. Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 13\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nShareholders § 14.02 (7th ed. 2019). The Internal Revenue Code prevents a company with pre-\\nexisting losses from purchasing a company with pre-existing gains and canceling the two out\\nwithin five years of the sale. See 26 U.S.C. § 384; Bittker & Eustice, supra, § 14.45.\\n\\n That’s why MidCoast told the Hawks that it would operate Holiday Bowl as a\\ndebt-collection business and generate new losses within Holiday Bowl—a different strategy from\\nthe one the broker originally proposed. For this scheme to eliminate Holiday Bowl’s 2003 taxes,\\nit appears, the new losses needed to arise between the November 2003 sale and the end of the\\nyear. After hearing the evidence, the Tax Court concluded that “[i]t was not plausible” that a\\nMidCoast-owned Holiday Bowl could ever incur the necessary “offsetting expenses” in time.\\nJ.A. 3 at 481.\\n\\n That reality and others too separate this case from Summa Holdings, Inc. v.\\nCommissioner, 848 F.3d 779 (6th Cir. 2017). Those taxpayers sought to take advantage of two\\ninvestment vehicles—a “domestic international sales corporation” and a Roth IRA. The former\\nallows an exporter to shelter certain income from corporate tax. Id. at 782. The latter allows\\nindividuals to save limited amounts tax free. Id. at 783. Done together, a Roth IRA owning\\nshares in a domestic international sales corporation permits taxpayers to transfer (and potentially\\ngrow) many assets in their Roth IRAs and spare themselves considerable taxes. Id.\\n\\n That’s exactly what the Summa Holdings taxpayers did. Citing the substance-over-form\\ndoctrine, however, the Commissioner claimed authority to ignore the form of the legislatively\\napproved transactions. We disagreed because “[the] Internal Revenue Code allowed” the\\ntaxpayers “to do what they did.” Id. at 784. Courts (and agencies) must respect a statute’s text,\\nand the Commissioner’s revision took the substance-over-form doctrine a “step too far.” Id. at\\n785. The Commissioner, we acknowledged, may “honor the fiscal realities of what taxpayers\\nhave done over the form in which they have done it.” Id. But neither the Commissioner in\\nparticular nor the Executive Branch in general may rewrite “the meaning of statutes” whenever it\\ndislikes the law. Id.\\n\\n Think about it. Everyone in Summa Holdings agreed that the plain terms of the relevant\\nstatutes permitted the transaction. Id. at 784. Not even Chevron permits government agencies to\\n\\f No. 18-1534 Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Page 14\\n Marital Trust et al. v. Comm’r\\n\\nignore the plain text of a statute. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S.\\n837, 842–43 (1984). What, then, made the Internal Revenue Service think it could ignore the\\nplain text of a statute—one that other agencies could not override under Chevron—under the\\nsubstance-over-form doctrine? This version of the doctrine makes Chevron look like a modest\\nassumption of executive power. When all was said and done, Summa Holdings was a case in\\nwhich the taxpayers forced the government to play it straight—to make it respect the form and\\nsubstance of the laws Congress wrote.\\n\\n That leaves two sides to the substance and form coin. On one side is Summa Holdings.\\nIf Congress authorizes taxpayers to do something—in Summa Holdings, employing\\nCode-compliant “shell corporations . . . that have no economic substance”—the Commissioner\\ncan’t override the constitutional forces of bicameralism and presentment. Summa Holdings,\\n898 F.3d at 786. On the other side is the Hawks’ case. The government isn’t seeking to ignore\\nthe form of the Code today. It’s enforcing the statutes as written. No one disputes that Holiday\\nBowl owed taxes that the Code imposes. The Code places substantial limits on even the above-\\nboard version of this transaction, limits that foreclosed MidCoast’s ability to offset Holiday\\nBowl’s pre-existing gains. What’s more, § 6901 provides a mechanism for the government to\\npursue a delinquent taxpayer’s assets in cases just like this one. Tennessee law seeks a similar\\nend. All in all, the Commissioner isn’t disregarding statutory text in the name of economic\\nsubstance; he’s honoring the written word and the economic realities of this transaction.\\n\\n We affirm.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2079,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4620246,"string":"4,620,246"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Shari GUERTIN, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Child, E.B., a Minor; Diogenes Muse-Cleveland, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. State of MICHIGAN, Et Al., Defendants, City of Flint, Michigan, Howard Croft, Darnell Earley, and Gerald Ambrose (17-1699) ; Liane Shekter-Smith, Daniel Wyant, Stephen Busch, Michael Prysby, and Bradley Wurfel (17-1745), Defendants-Appellants."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Shari Guertin v. Michigan"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-16"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-1699/1745"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Judge Readler recused himself from participation in this decision\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0093p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n SHARI GUERTIN, individually and as next friend of her ┐\\n child, E.B., a minor; DIOGENES MUSE-CLEVELAND, │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. │\\n > Nos. 17-1699/1745\\n │\\n STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al., │\\n Defendants, │\\n │\\n CITY OF FLINT, MICHIGAN, HOWARD CROFT, DARNELL │\\n EARLEY, and GERALD AMBROSE (17-1699); LIANE │\\n SHEKTER-SMITH, DANIEL WYANT, STEPHEN BUSCH, │\\n MICHAEL PRYSBY, and BRADLEY WURFEL (17-1745), │\\n │\\n Defendants-Appellants.\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.\\n No. 5:16-cv-12412—Judith E. Levy, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 16, 2019\\n\\n Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC: Frederick A. Berg, Jr., Sheldon H. Klein,\\nBUTZEL LONG, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, Alexander S. Rusek, WHITE LAW PLLC, Okemos,\\nMichigan, William Y. Kim, CITY OF FLINT, Flint, Michigan, Barry A. Wolf, LAW OFFICE\\nOF BARRY A. WOLF PLLC, Flint, Michigan, for Appellants in 17-1699. John J. Bursch,\\nBURSCH LAW PLLC, Caledonia, Michigan, Philip A. Grashoff, Jr., KOTZ SANGSTER\\nWYSOCKI P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Thaddeus E. Morgan, Michael H. Perry, FRASER\\nTREBILCOCK, Lansing, Michigan, Charles E. Barbieri, Allison M. Collins, FOSTER, SWIFT,\\nCOLLINS & SMITH, P.C., Lansing, Michigan, Jay M. Berger, Michael J. Pattwell, CLARK\\nHILL PLC, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants in 17-1745. ON RESPONSE: Steven Hart,\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nHART, MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, John Sawin, SAWIN LAW\\nFIRM, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, Paul T. Geske, MCGUIRE LAW, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for\\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Samuel R. Bagenstos, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Amici Curiae.\\n\\n GIBBONS, J. (pg. 3), delivered a separate concurring opinion in which STRANCH, J.,\\njoined. SUTTON, J. (pp. 4–10), delivered a separate concurring opinion in which BUSH, J.,\\njoined. KETHLEDGE, J. (pp. 11–13), delivered a separate dissenting opinion in which\\nTHAPAR, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, JJ., joined.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n ORDER\\n _________________\\n\\n The court received petitions for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the\\npetitions for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petitions were fully considered\\nupon the original submission and decision. The petitions then were circulated to the full court.1\\nLess than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.\\n\\n Therefore, the petitions are denied.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1Judge Readler recused himself from participation in this decision.\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4397499/\", \"author_raw\": \"Judge Readler recused himself from participation in this decision\"}, {\"author\": \"GIBBONS, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"GIBBONS, Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. I write\\nseparately to note that at this stage in the proceeding, it is better to find out what facts will\\neventually be before the district court, rather than to prematurely attempt to determine what law\\nwould apply to those hypothetical facts. In reading the 89-page complaint, this court could find\\nmany iterations of possible allegations. As Judge Sutton notes, some of those possible\\nallegations would not permit finding a constitutional violation. Still, others would permit such a\\nfinding.\\n\\n When considering a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, it is not our job to find the facts. Our job\\nis, and only is, to determine whether any possible allegation plausibly states a claim under which\\nrelief can be granted. To decide any other issue would be judicial overreach. To discuss\\nanything further would be an advisory opinion. Both the majority and dissent rushed to\\narticulate a standard before the facts had been fully discovered.\\n\\n The plaintiffs, with whom every opinion expresses sympathy, are entitled to the full\\nbenefit of the rule’s broad standard. That means that, so long as they have pled plausible\\nallegations that would constitute a constitutional violation, they are entitled to discovery. The\\n12(b)(6) standard “does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply\\ncalls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of\\nillegal [conduct].” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). We must “let district\\ncourts do what district courts do best—make factual findings—and steel ourselves to respect\\nwhat they find.” Taglieri v. Monasky, 907 F.3d 404, 408 (6th Cir. 2018) (en banc).\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4397499/\", \"author_raw\": \"GIBBONS, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}, {\"author\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. If bad facts run\\nthe risk of making bad law, terrible facts run the risk of disfiguring law and silencing it\\naltogether. In their complaint, the plaintiffs in this traumatic case plant the seeds of two potential\\nstories. One speaks of local officials who bungled their response to a water crisis and in the\\nprocess inadvertently polluted the water supply for the people of Flint, Michigan. The other\\nspeaks of local officials who intentionally poisoned Flint’s water supply. In each telling, the\\nclaimants invoke the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In each telling, the\\nclaimants invoke the most far-reaching and the least guide-posted permutation of that guarantee:\\nsubstantive due process. And in each telling, the claimants seek hundreds of millions of dollars\\nin retroactive money damages for the alleged constitutional violations.\\n\\n Each story leads to a different end.\\n\\n Negligent, even grossly negligent, conduct by local officials does not generally violate\\ncitizens’ substantive due process rights. Least of all would these actions clearly violate such\\nrights, as there is very little that is clear about substantive due process. If that’s what happened\\nhere, this litigation needs to end—promptly. It is a distraction to the key goal (fixing Flint’s\\nwater supply), and it is unfair to the public servants to boot. Their mistakes may deserve public\\ncriticism, but they do not deserve the tag of violating clearly established constitutional rights and\\nwhat comes with it: exposure to crippling monetary judgments.\\n\\n But an intentional or reckless effort to poison Flint’s water supply is another matter. If\\nthat’s what happened, the case must proceed.\\n\\n So which account is the right account? It’s too early to say. At the pleading stage of a\\ncase, plaintiffs are entitled to make plausible allegations in their complaint and use the discovery\\nprocess to ferret out support for their preferred account through depositions, emails, and\\ndocuments. At this early stage of the case, we must give the benefit of the doubt to the plaintiffs’\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\npreferred theory of the case and allow the discovery process to determine whether plausible\\nallegations in their complaint mature into fact-supported allegations.\\n\\n In view of the starkly different nature of these two accounts and in view of the starkly\\ndifferent outcomes for each of them, I would have written the majority opinion—permitting this\\ncase to proceed to discovery—in a different key. At least five features of this unfortunate case\\nwarrant a tone of caution.\\n\\n Cautionary feature one. This is a money damages case against public officials in their\\nindividual capacities. We do not lightly allow citizens to tap private pockets or the public\\ntreasury by suing the public officials that a majority of them selected to handle these jobs. That’s\\nwhy claimants must show that (1) the officials violated their constitutional rights and (2) the\\nofficials were on notice of the prohibition because they violated well-established constitutional\\nrights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Only when the unconstitutionality of a\\nlocal official’s actions is “beyond debate,” only when “every reasonable official would have\\nunderstood that what he is doing violates that right,” will we deny him protection. Ashcroft v. al-\\nKidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011) (quotation omitted). Qualified immunity protects “all but the\\nplainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335,\\n341 (1986). That is a rigorous standard.\\n\\n Cautionary feature two. Even when viewed in its best light, the plaintiffs’ claim of\\nunconstitutionality takes us to the outer edges of judicial competence. Unlike claims anchored in\\nthe U.S. Constitution’s text, substantive due process cases offer little guidance about the reach of\\nour authority, inviting a free-floating inquiry devoid of textual rhyme or reason. That’s why we\\nare directed to proceed slowly in this area “lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause\\nbe subtly transformed into the policy preferences of” any two judges on this court. Washington\\nv. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997). And that’s why the U.S. Supreme Court warns us that\\n“the Fourteenth Amendment is not a font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems\\nmay already be administered by the States.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 848\\n(1998) (quotation omitted).\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n But “a font of tort law” layered onto the state courts’ remedial laws is just what we seem\\nto be getting in this case. Our job is not to invoke highly abstract rights to facilitate money\\ndamages actions under § 1983 but to stoop to examine the details of the cases to make sure they\\nplainly mark the lines of constitutional trespass and alert public officials to their metes and\\nbounds. A comparison between this case and the bodily integrity cases invoked by the claimants\\nshows a yawning gap. Sure, the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited investigators from forcibly\\npumping a suspect’s stomach to recover swallowed evidence, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S.\\n165, 172 (1952), has allowed a prisoner (in some cases) to forgo unwanted antipsychotic\\nmedication, Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221–22 (1990), and has assumed a right to\\nrefuse life-saving medical treatment, Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 279\\n(1990).\\n\\n But to describe these fact patterns is to question their applicability here. Not one of them\\ninvolves the provision of a public utility in a time of economic hardship. Not one of these\\ndecisions, innovative at the time, involves a retroactive money damages action against public\\nofficials in their individual capacities. And all of them caution us to adopt the tenor of restraint\\nwhen it comes to extending the right to bodily integrity in a new direction.\\n\\n The precedent the panel majority found “especially analogous” to today’s case, Guertin v.\\nMichigan, 912 F.3d 907, 921 (6th Cir. 2019), has no business in the inquiry. It is a district court\\ncase. See In re Cincinnati Radiation Litig., 874 F. Supp. 796 (S.D. Ohio 1995). And district\\ncourt decisions do not mark appellate law—the relevant benchmark for ascertaining well-\\nestablished constitutional law. See Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 709 n.7 (2011); Hall v.\\nSweet, 666 F. App’x 469, 481 (6th Cir. 2016).\\n\\n Cautionary feature three. Even aside from the one-off nature of these cases, the\\ninscrutable nature of the inquiry by itself gives pause. While many acts of public officials might\\ntheoretically affect the right to bodily integrity, only an official who “shocks the conscience”\\nviolates the right. Lewis, 523 U.S. at 846. Missing from this case so far is any recognition that\\nthe purpose of the test is to restrain judges, not empower them; to remove claims from the\\nconstitutional arena, not to expand nebulous notions of substantive due process. See id. at 846–\\n49. Also missing is an appreciation of the imperative that we not apply the “clearly established”\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nprong of qualified immunity at a nose-bleed level of generality, but rather must find precedent\\n“particularized to the facts of the case.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551–52 (2017) (per\\ncuriam) (quotation omitted). Whatever else the shocks-the-conscience test means in the context\\nof an effort to pierce public employees’ qualified immunity, it at a minimum requires “an exact\\nanalysis of circumstances,” Lewis, 523 U.S. at 850, measured by truly comparable cases. In the\\noften “unfamiliar territory” that cases like this one present, “mechanical application” of prior\\nprecedent usually does little good. Id.\\n\\n Cautionary feature four. All of this means that our court and the district court must\\ncarefully match allegations to individual defendants to determine whether the plaintiffs can show\\nthat each official engaged in conscience-shocking behavior—and clearly established behavior at\\nthat. Doubt clouds several aspects of the claims that remain in the case. By the plaintiffs’ own\\naccount, the defendants relied on independent experts in making the most crucial decisions.\\nHow could that conduct show intentional misconduct—intentional poisoning of the people of\\nFlint—given that the officials, aware of their own limitations, sought outside help? That does\\nnot sound like intentional or reckless behavior.\\n\\n A like concern arises from the allegations against individual defendants still in the case.\\nTake Darnell Earley as one example of this problem. He served as Flint’s emergency manager\\nfrom November 2013 until January 12, 2015. The complaint alleges that he “made the decision\\nto switch to Flint River water,” R. 1 at 7, then “forced the transition through” before Flint’s\\ntreatment plant was ready in order to keep up with his “aggressive deadline,” R. 1 at 21. He also\\nallegedly made false and misleading statements that Flint’s water was safe. But the complaint\\ndoes not allege that he knew those statements were false. It instead says that the government\\nhired an outside engineering firm to make sure the city properly treated the water. Those experts\\ndid not recommend that the city set water quality standards or implement corrosion control\\nbefore using the river’s water. And the first report of lead in Flint’s drinking water did not come\\nuntil January 9, 2015. That’s only four days before Gerald Ambrose replaced Earley as the\\nemergency manager and around the same time that officials employed a second outside\\nengineering firm to investigate complaints. (That firm also concluded that the water was safe.) I\\nstruggle to see how Earley’s actions, all consistent with outside experts’ advice, rise to the\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nthreshold of a clearly established substantive due process violation. The same may be true of\\nother individual defendants.\\n\\n Cautionary feature five. A similar case already exists in state court. Based on the same\\nevents, several individuals filed a putative class action in the Michigan courts against most of the\\nsame defendants under the substantive due process guarantee of the Michigan Constitution. See\\nMays v. Snyder, 916 N.W.2d 227, 240, 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). The Michigan Court of\\nAppeals denied the defendants’ motions for summary disposition as to the state law due process\\nbodily integrity claims, and that case continues to wind its way through the Michigan court\\nsystem. Id. at 242–43, 277.\\n\\n Would it not make sense for the federal courts to wait and see what relief the Michigan\\nConstitution provides before determining whether the state defendants violated the Due Process\\nClause of the U.S. Constitution? Before deciding whether someone may sue a State for\\ndepriving him of property or liberty or life without due process, the federal courts first consider\\nthe judicial process the State provides him to remedy his alleged injuries. Parratt v. Taylor,\\n451 U.S. 527, 543–44 (1981); see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); see also Albright\\nv. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 283–86 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment). For that\\nreason, if the underlying state and federal claims in today’s case turned on process in its\\nconventional sense, the federal courts presumably would stay their hand to determine what\\nprocess the State provided. If that approach makes sense in the context of procedural due\\nprocess, it makes doubly good sense in the context of substantive due process. Otherwise, we\\ngive claimants more leeway when they raise the most inventive of the two claims, rewarding\\nthem for asking us to do more of what we should be doing less.\\n\\n This is not a new concept. For some time, the federal courts have tried to avoid federal\\nconstitutional questions when they can. See Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 341\\n(1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). One way to further that goal is to learn whether the\\nsubstantive due process protections of the Michigan Constitution or any other state laws redress\\nthe plaintiffs’ injuries. Because the “open-ended” nature of substantive due process claims lacks\\n“guideposts for responsible decisionmaking,” Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115,\\n125 (1992), we should welcome input from the Michigan courts about what process, substantive\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nor otherwise, is due under state law. Better under these circumstances, it seems to me, to hold\\nthe federal substantive due process claims in abeyance—and avoid prematurely creating new\\nfederal constitutional tort regimes—until the plaintiffs have had a chance to vindicate their rights\\nin state court. Cf. Browder v. City of Albuquerque, 787 F.3d 1076, 1083–85 (10th Cir. 2015)\\n(Gorsuch, J., concurring).\\n\\n All of this by the way will prove beneficial whether the plaintiffs win or lose in state\\ncourt. If they win, there will be less, perhaps nothing at all, for the federal courts to remedy\\nunder federal substantive due process. If they lose, the state courts’ explanation may inform the\\nfederal claims.\\n\\n Having urged our court and the district court to address these claims with caution and\\nrestraint, I must accept a dose of my own medicine. Two features of this case offer some support\\nfor these decisions—sufficient support to wait and see before granting a petition to review the\\ncase as a full court. One reasonable explanation for waiting to review the dispute is the stage of\\nthe case—Rule 12(b)(6)—from which these decisions arose. This is not a barebones complaint\\nbased on implausible allegations. It comes in at 89 pages. And it offers plenty of details that at\\nleast plausibly allege public acts of recklessness and intentional misbehavior. The point of\\ndiscovery is to allow claimants and the courts to determine whether facts support plausible\\nclaims. That opportunity should help us all in resolving this case fairly.\\n\\n A second reasonable explanation for waiting to review this case as a full court is the hard-\\nto-pin-down nature of the clearly established inquiry. The officials, it is true, can be found liable\\nonly if this lawsuit falls into the narrow category of cases so egregious, so obvious, that all\\nreasonable officials must have known what they did was wrong. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S.\\n730, 741 (2002). What’s tricky is figuring out what counts as reckless or intentional behavior—\\nin the context of a clearly established conscience-shocking standard of care. For better or worse,\\nthe case law seems to present a sliding scale—the more evidence of unforgiveable intent, the less\\nnecessity to identify a case just like this one. That is what seemed to happen in Hope v. Pelzer.\\nThe facts were unique. No correctional officials before then, at least in a litigated case, had\\nthought to chain inmates to a hitching post in the unrelenting heat of the Alabama sun for seven\\nhours as a form of prison discipline. What permitted the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nstate officials violated clearly established norms turned not on any one precedent but on the\\negregiousness of the state officials’ state of mind. Id. at 741, 745. So long as that is an\\nappropriate approach to qualified immunity claims, it would seem that allegations like these—\\nintentional or reckless poisoning of citizens—plausibly clear the clearly established hurdle and\\nwarrant discovery. See Wesley v. Campbell, 779 F.3d 421, 433–34 (6th Cir. 2015); Evans-\\nMarshall v. Bd. of Educ. of Tipp City Exempted Village Sch. Dist., 428 F.3d 223, 235 (6th Cir.\\n2005) (Sutton, J., concurring); see also Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 774–76 (7th\\nCir. 2000) (Easterbrook, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).\\n\\n That discovery should proceed does not eliminate a role for the district court. One would\\nhope that the court, in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential protections of\\nqualified immunity at summary judgment, would not deploy a laissez-faire approach to\\ndocument and deposition discovery. Carefully tailored and prompt discovery should answer\\nwhether the intentional and reckless poisoning allegations hold up. If not, this case needs to\\nreturn to the court of public opinion, where one suspects it should have remained all along.\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n DISSENT\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4397499/\", \"author_raw\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}, {\"author\": \"KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc. To state\\nthe obvious, the sympathies of every decent person run entirely to the plaintiffs in this case. But\\nsometimes the law, evenhandedly applied, leads to a result contrary to the crush of popular\\nopinion. This is one of those cases.\\n\\n Respectfully, the majority’s decision on the issue of qualified immunity is barely\\ncolorable. To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that “existing law” made\\nnot merely the legality, but “the constitutionality of the [state] officer’s conduct ‘beyond\\ndebate.’” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (emphasis added) (quoting\\nAshcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011)). Here, the putative constitutional violation\\nconcerns the vaguest of constitutional doctrines, namely substantive due process. The doctrine\\npurports to protect—“specifically,” no less—“those fundamental rights and liberties which are,\\nobjectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of\\nordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” Maj.\\nOp. at 6-7 (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 512 U.S. 702, 720-21 (1997)). That formulation\\n(along with any number of alternative ones) is more oratory than legal rule, which has made the\\ndoctrine malleable enough to generate an array of constitutional rights over the years. Those\\ninclude, to cite only a handful: the right to work unlimited hours in a bakery, Lochner v. New\\nYork, 198 U.S. 45, 53 (1905); the right to procreate, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson,\\n316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); the right to charge certain minimum railroad rates, Ex parte Young,\\n209 U.S. 123, 149 (1908); the right to teach schoolchildren in German, Meyer v. Nebraska,\\n262 U.S. 390, 403 (1923); and the right not to pay “grossly excessive” punitive damages, BMW\\nof N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 562 (1996).\\n\\n But just as crowbars are not made out of tin, substantive due process’s easy malleability\\nmakes it a notably poor instrument for prying away an officer’s qualified immunity. For to\\novercome that immunity in a case (like this one) where the claim is constitutional, the “contours”\\nof the relevant constitutional rule “must be so well defined that it is ‘clear to a reasonable\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nofficer’” that his conduct would violate the rule. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. at 590 (quoting Saucier v.\\nKatz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001)). That requirement—often repeated by the Supreme Court, but\\nsometimes, as here, overlooked—presents two obstacles to the majority’s decision in this case.\\nThe first concerns the particular “fundamental right” (or rule) that the majority relies upon,\\nnamely a “right to bodily integrity[.]” Maj. Op. at 7. The sheer vagueness of that formulation\\nillustrates that its “contours” are shapeless rather than crisp, subjective rather than objective,\\nunknowable until judicially announced. Even the majority acknowledges (as it stretches the right\\nfurther) that the right presents “far from a categorical rule.” Maj. Op. at 8.\\n\\n The second problem is related: the “bodily integrity” caselaw fails to provide the “high\\n‘degree of specificity[,]’” Wesby, 138 S.Ct. at 590 (quoting Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.Ct. 305, 309\\n(2015) (per curiam)), necessary to overcome qualified immunity, at least as to the claim here.\\nInstead that caselaw for the most part provides a handful of data points, which form more of a\\ndusty nimbus than a planetary ring. But the caselaw does reveal a sine qua non for the right’s\\nviolation: that the officer’s invasion of the plaintiff’s bodily integrity be intentional. To cite the\\nmajority’s own examples: the right protects against “forcible injection” of “antipsychotic\\nmedication[,]” Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 220-21, 229 (1990); against forcible\\nstomach-pumping, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172 (1952); and, in a district court case,\\nagainst conducting medical experiments upon cancer patients without their consent, In re\\nCincinnati Radiation Litigation, 874 F.Supp. 796, 803 (S.D.Ohio 1995). Nobody forcibly injects\\nor stomach-pumps or conducts medical experiments upon another person by accident. Yet the\\nclaim at issue here, as the plaintiffs themselves make it, indisputably sounds in negligence: that\\n“Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights to bodily integrity, insofar as Defendants failed to protect\\nPlaintiffs from a foreseeable risk of harm”—the classic formulation, as any first-year law student\\nknows, of a negligence claim—from “exposure to lead contaminated water.” Compl. ¶ 384\\n(emphasis added). And even the majority concedes that “[t]here is no allegation defendants\\nintended to harm Flint residents.” Maj. Op. at 18. Thus, the only manner in which the\\nmajority’s “examples illustrate the breadth” of the right to bodily integrity, Maj. Op. at 9, is to\\nshow that the right is inapposite here.\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\n What the majority opinion does, in response, is simple: it changes the level of generality\\nat which it describes the putative right, until the description is general enough to reach the\\nplaintiffs’ allegations of negligence. Specifically, what the court first describes as a\\n“constitutional right [of persons] to be free from forcible intrusions on their bodies against their\\nwill,” Maj. Op. at 9 (emphasis added), on the next page becomes a sweeping right of\\n“nonconsenting individuals” to be free of “foreign substances with no known therapeutic\\nvalue[,]” Maj. Op. at 10—in short, a constitutional right to be free of unwanted substances. That\\nputative right is violated every day, indeed every time that virtually any of us takes a breath. But\\nmore to the point, the majority’s formulation elides what the prior cases require—namely that the\\nofficer’s injection or intrusion of the “foreign substance” into the plaintiff’s body be intentional.\\n\\n No official—no matter how blameworthy he might be on moral grounds—can be\\nexpected to recognize in advance that a court will recast a legal rule so that it applies to conduct\\nto which it has never applied before. That in part is why the Supreme Court has “repeatedly\\nstressed that courts must not ‘define clearly established law at a high level of generality[.]’”\\nWesby, 138 S.Ct. at 590 (quoting Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 779 (2014)). Yet that is\\nprecisely what our court’s opinion does here. The Supreme Court has also repeatedly said that\\ncourts must not turn substantive due process into “a font of tort law to be superimposed upon\\nwhatever systems may already be administered by the States[.]” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S.\\n327, 332 (1986) (quoting Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 (1976)). Yet our court’s opinion does\\nthat too, by expanding substantive due process to reach claims based on negligence rather than\\nintent. Our court’s opinion, “in other words, does exactly what the Supreme Court has\\nrepeatedly told us not to do.” Etherton v. Rivard, 800 F.3d 737, 757 (6th Cir. 2015) (dissenting\\nopinion), rev’d sub nom. Woods v. Etherton, 136 S.Ct. 1149 (2016) (per curiam).\\n\\n I respectfully dissent from the order denying rehearing en banc.\\n\\n ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT\\n\\n\\n\\n ___________________________________\\n Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4397499/\", \"author_raw\": \"KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MCKEAGUE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFIN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"WHITE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"McKEAGUE\": \", Circuit\", \"GRIFFIN\": \", Circuit\", \"WHITE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4620246/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Shari GUERTIN, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Child, E.B., a Minor; Diogenes Muse-Cleveland, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. State of MICHIGAN, Et Al., Defendants, City of Flint, Michigan, Howard Croft, Darnell Earley, and Gerald Ambrose (17-1699) ; Liane Shekter-Smith, Daniel Wyant, Stephen Busch, Michael Prysby, and Bradley Wurfel (17-1745), Defendants-Appellants.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-16\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0093p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n SHARI GUERTIN, individually and as next friend of her ┐\n child, E.B., a minor; DIOGENES MUSE-CLEVELAND, │\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, │\n │\n │\n v. │\n > Nos. 17-1699/1745\n │\n STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al., │\n Defendants, │\n │\n CITY OF FLINT, MICHIGAN, HOWARD CROFT, DARNELL │\n EARLEY, and GERALD AMBROSE (17-1699); LIANE │\n SHEKTER-SMITH, DANIEL WYANT, STEPHEN BUSCH, │\n MICHAEL PRYSBY, and BRADLEY WURFEL (17-1745), │\n │\n Defendants-Appellants.\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.\n No. 5:16-cv-12412—Judith E. Levy, District Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: May 16, 2019\n\n Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC: Frederick A. Berg, Jr., Sheldon H. Klein,\nBUTZEL LONG, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, Alexander S. Rusek, WHITE LAW PLLC, Okemos,\nMichigan, William Y. Kim, CITY OF FLINT, Flint, Michigan, Barry A. Wolf, LAW OFFICE\nOF BARRY A. WOLF PLLC, Flint, Michigan, for Appellants in 17-1699. John J. Bursch,\nBURSCH LAW PLLC, Caledonia, Michigan, Philip A. Grashoff, Jr., KOTZ SANGSTER\nWYSOCKI P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Thaddeus E. Morgan, Michael H. Perry, FRASER\nTREBILCOCK, Lansing, Michigan, Charles E. Barbieri, Allison M. Collins, FOSTER, SWIFT,\nCOLLINS & SMITH, P.C., Lansing, Michigan, Jay M. Berger, Michael J. Pattwell, CLARK\nHILL PLC, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants in 17-1745. ON RESPONSE: Steven Hart,\n\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 2\n\n\nHART, MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, John Sawin, SAWIN LAW\nFIRM, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, Paul T. Geske, MCGUIRE LAW, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Samuel R. Bagenstos, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Amici Curiae.\n\n GIBBONS, J. (pg. 3), delivered a separate concurring opinion in which STRANCH, J.,\njoined. SUTTON, J. (pp. 4–10), delivered a separate concurring opinion in which BUSH, J.,\njoined. KETHLEDGE, J. (pp. 11–13), delivered a separate dissenting opinion in which\nTHAPAR, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, JJ., joined.\n\n _________________\n\n ORDER\n _________________\n\n The court received petitions for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the\npetitions for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petitions were fully considered\nupon the original submission and decision. The petitions then were circulated to the full court.1\nLess than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.\n\n Therefore, the petitions are denied.\n\n\n\n\n 1Judge Readler recused himself from participation in this decision.\n\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 3\n\n\n _________________\n\n CONCURRENCE\n _________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Shari GUERTIN, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Child, E.B., a Minor; Diogenes Muse-Cleveland, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. State of MICHIGAN, Et Al., Defendants, City of Flint, Michigan, Howard Croft, Darnell Earley, and Gerald Ambrose (17-1699) ; Liane Shekter-Smith, Daniel Wyant, Stephen Busch, Michael Prysby, and Bradley Wurfel (17-1745), Defendants-Appellants.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-16\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0093p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n SHARI GUERTIN, individually and as next friend of her ┐\\n child, E.B., a minor; DIOGENES MUSE-CLEVELAND, │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. │\\n > Nos. 17-1699/1745\\n │\\n STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al., │\\n Defendants, │\\n │\\n CITY OF FLINT, MICHIGAN, HOWARD CROFT, DARNELL │\\n EARLEY, and GERALD AMBROSE (17-1699); LIANE │\\n SHEKTER-SMITH, DANIEL WYANT, STEPHEN BUSCH, │\\n MICHAEL PRYSBY, and BRADLEY WURFEL (17-1745), │\\n │\\n Defendants-Appellants.\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.\\n No. 5:16-cv-12412—Judith E. Levy, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 16, 2019\\n\\n Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC: Frederick A. Berg, Jr., Sheldon H. Klein,\\nBUTZEL LONG, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, Alexander S. Rusek, WHITE LAW PLLC, Okemos,\\nMichigan, William Y. Kim, CITY OF FLINT, Flint, Michigan, Barry A. Wolf, LAW OFFICE\\nOF BARRY A. WOLF PLLC, Flint, Michigan, for Appellants in 17-1699. John J. Bursch,\\nBURSCH LAW PLLC, Caledonia, Michigan, Philip A. Grashoff, Jr., KOTZ SANGSTER\\nWYSOCKI P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Thaddeus E. Morgan, Michael H. Perry, FRASER\\nTREBILCOCK, Lansing, Michigan, Charles E. Barbieri, Allison M. Collins, FOSTER, SWIFT,\\nCOLLINS & SMITH, P.C., Lansing, Michigan, Jay M. Berger, Michael J. Pattwell, CLARK\\nHILL PLC, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants in 17-1745. ON RESPONSE: Steven Hart,\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nHART, MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, John Sawin, SAWIN LAW\\nFIRM, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, Paul T. Geske, MCGUIRE LAW, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for\\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Samuel R. Bagenstos, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Amici Curiae.\\n\\n GIBBONS, J. (pg. 3), delivered a separate concurring opinion in which STRANCH, J.,\\njoined. SUTTON, J. (pp. 4–10), delivered a separate concurring opinion in which BUSH, J.,\\njoined. KETHLEDGE, J. (pp. 11–13), delivered a separate dissenting opinion in which\\nTHAPAR, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, JJ., joined.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n ORDER\\n _________________\\n\\n The court received petitions for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the\\npetitions for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petitions were fully considered\\nupon the original submission and decision. The petitions then were circulated to the full court.1\\nLess than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.\\n\\n Therefore, the petitions are denied.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1Judge Readler recused himself from participation in this decision.\\n\\n Nos. 17-1699/1745 Guertin et al. v. Michigan et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE\\n _________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2080,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4620992,"string":"4,620,992"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"AES-APEX EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC.; AES-Apex Employer Solutions, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees (17-2068), Plaintiffs-Appellants (17-2211), v. Dino ROTONDO; Richard Mark; United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees (17-2068 & 17-2211), Akouri Investments, LLC, Intervenor-Appellant (17-2068), Intervenor-Appellee (17-2211)."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"AES-Apex Employer Servs. v. Dino Rotondo"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-2068/17-2211"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Suhrheinrich, Thapar, Larsen\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"THAPAR, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0094p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n AES-APEX EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC.; AES-APEX ┐\\n EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS, INC., │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees (17-2068), │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants (17-2211), │\\n │\\n > Nos. 17-2068/2211\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n DINO ROTONDO; RICHARD MARK; UNITED STATES │\\n DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE │\\n SERVICE, │\\n Defendants-Appellees (17-2068 & 17-2211), │\\n │\\n │\\n AKOURI INVESTMENTS, LLC,\\n │\\n Intervenor-Appellant (17-2068), │\\n Intervenor-Appellee (17-2211). │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:13-cv-14519—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: May 8, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 17, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: H. Nathan Resnick, RESNICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Akouri\\nInvestments. Geoffrey J. Klimas, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,\\nWashington, D.C., for United States Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service.\\nScott D. MacDonald, DIXON & MACDONALD, Southfield, Michigan, for AES-Apex. ON\\nBRIEF: H. Nathan Resnick, RESNICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Akouri\\nInvestments. Geoffrey J. Klimas, Teresa E. McLaughlin, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nOF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for United States Department of the Treasury and Internal\\nRevenue Service. Scott D. MacDonald, DIXON & MACDONALD, Southfield, Michigan, for\\nAES-Apex.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Dino Rotondo serves as a consultant for AES-Apex. This case\\nis a dispute about who gets the money that he makes consulting. The IRS says that it should get\\nthe money because Rotondo is behind on his taxes. Akouri Investments says it should get the\\nmoney instead because Akouri loaned Rotondo money that he has not paid back yet. And\\nfinally, AES-Apex says that it should get to keep some of the money pursuant to its contract with\\nRotondo. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS, and we affirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n As relevant here, Dino Rotondo was the sole owner of Apex Administrative Services\\n(“Apex”). Apex, in turn, wholly owned four limited liability companies: Apex HR Services,\\nLLC, Pinnacle HR Services, LLC, AS Holdings Group, LLC, and AS South, LLC (collectively,\\nthe “Directional Entities”). Together with these Directional Entities, Apex provided a variety of\\nservices, such as human resources, to different clients.\\n\\n Eventually Rotondo opted to sell the Directional Entities’ key asset—their customer lists,\\nessentially lists of who their clients were. He sold the customer lists in a deal with two firms,\\nAES-Apex Solutions, Inc. and AES-Apex Employer Services, Inc. (collectively, “AES”). As\\npart of that deal, AES agreed to pay Rotondo a share of its gross profits in the form of\\n“Consulting Fees.”\\n\\n Yet the bad news for Rotondo is that he will not keep the Consulting Fees because he\\nowes a lot of money and is behind on his payments. Two entities have claims to collect\\nRotondo’s Consulting Fees. First, a firm named Akouri Investments, LLC (“Akouri”) loaned\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nmoney to one of Rotondo’s other companies.1 In return for that loan, Akouri gained a security\\ninterest in Apex’s assets. When Rotondo failed to pay back his loan, Akouri obtained a\\njudgment against Rotondo and Apex for $1.4 million.\\n\\n Second, Rotondo owes the IRS. Over the years, Rotondo failed to pay his taxes, so the\\nIRS has assessed various tax penalties against him. As of 2015, Rotondo owed the IRS\\n$3.4 million. To try and get that money, the IRS filed several notices of tax liens against\\nRotondo, Apex, and the Directional Entities.\\n\\n Once Rotondo started earning his Consulting Fees, both the IRS and Akouri saw an\\nopportunity to get what they were owed. The IRS contacted AES directly, claiming it was\\nentitled to the Consulting Fees because of its tax liens. Then, several months later, Akouri\\nclaimed that it was entitled to the Consulting Fees. Facing conflicting claims to the Consulting\\nFees—and the possibility of having to pay twice—AES filed this interpleader action in state\\ncourt. Interpleader permits a party facing claims “that may expose [it] to double or multiple\\nliability” to join all claimants as defendants in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1). The IRS\\nremoved the case to federal district court, and the district court granted summary judgment in its\\nfavor. The parties now appeal several of the district court’s decisions. We review each in turn.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Before determining whether the IRS or Akouri gets the Consulting Fees, we must first\\nfigure out the size of the pot—i.e., how much money does AES owe Rotondo? That turns on\\ntwo sets of agreements between AES and Rotondo: the Consulting Agreement and the Asset\\nPurchase Agreement.2 AES claims that both of those agreements allow it to deduct the costs and\\nattorneys’ fees that it incurs in this case from what it owes Rotondo in Consulting Fees. The\\ndistrict court disagreed and found instead that AES must pay the “full value” of those Consulting\\n\\n\\n\\n 1Another individual, Richard Mark, also loaned money to Rotondo’s companies, but Mark’s interest is not\\na subject of this appeal.\\n 2AES and Rotondo signed two Consulting Agreements and two Asset Purchase Agreements that the parties\\ntreat as having substantially identical terms except for the AES signatory (either AES-Apex Solutions, Inc. or AES-\\nApex Employer Services, Inc.). We refer to these agreements in the singular.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nFees. This is a matter of contract interpretation that we review de novo. Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v.\\nOrient Overseas Container Line Ltd., 525 F.3d 409, 421 (6th Cir. 2008).\\n\\n A.\\n\\n AES first claims that the Consulting Agreement allows it to deduct litigation expenses.\\nIn AES’s Consulting Agreement with Rotondo, AES agreed to pay Rotondo a percentage of\\ngross profits as Consulting Fees. But the agreement permits it to deduct two types of costs from\\nthose gross profits: the taxes that AES owes on its own profits and “direct expenses attributable\\nto the employees leased under [a client’s] account.” R. 1, Pg. ID 52. AES claims that the costs\\nof this litigation (including related state court actions) are such “direct expenses.” In interpreting\\nthe Consulting Agreement, we apply the “plain and ordinary meaning” of these terms. Rory v.\\nCont’l Ins. Co., 703 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Mich. 2005); see also Stryker Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins.\\nCo. of Pittsburgh, 842 F.3d 422, 426 (6th Cir. 2016) (applying Michigan law).\\n\\n This “direct expenses” argument does not go very far. Even assuming the meaning of the\\nphrase “direct expenses” could include the costs of this litigation, we do not interpret contract\\nlanguage in isolation. We must read “direct expenses” in context. See Mich. Twp. Participating\\nPlan v. Pavolich, 591 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). The full clause in the contract\\nsays that AES is only entitled to deduct “direct expenses attributable to the employees leased\\nunder [a client’s] account.” R. 1, Pg. ID 52 (emphasis added). “Attributable” essentially means\\n“produced by.” Oxford English Dictionary (2012). And the “employees leased” are AES’s\\nclients’ employees. Thus, the “direct expenses” clause covers expenses “produced by” the\\nemployees of one of AES’s clients. But neither AES’s clients nor its clients’ employees did\\nanything to produce these litigation expenses. None of AES’s clients are parties to this litigation,\\nand there is no suggestion that any of the clients’ employees are bringing claims for Rotondo’s\\nConsulting Fees—only the IRS and Akouri are. Indeed, AES’s briefing does not even mention\\nits clients’ employees or point to any evidence that the costs of this litigation could be attributed\\nto its clients’ employees. The litigation expenses from this case are not “attributable” to any of\\nAES’s employees at all—they are “attributable” to AES’s lawyers, the IRS, and Akouri. So,\\nunder the plain meaning of the Consulting Agreement, AES cannot deduct its litigation expenses\\nfrom Rotondo’s Consulting Fees.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n AES counters by saying that the purpose of this provision was to enhance its profitability.\\nThus, anything that lowers its profitability should be deducted from the Consulting Fees. But\\nsuch an expansive definition does not fit the language to which the parties agreed. Again, that\\nlanguage expressly limits AES’s deductions to only two categories—not anything that could\\n“significantly diminish[]” profit. 17-2068 Appellant Br. 20. We “honor the intent of the parties”\\nby enforcing their agreement “as written”—not based on whatever vague purposes can be\\nsupplied after the fact. Superior Commc’ns v. City of Riverview, 881 F.3d 432, 438 (6th Cir.\\n2018) (quoting Rasheed v. Chrysler Corp., 517 N.W.2d 19, 29 n.28 (Mich. 1998)). Accordingly,\\nAES may not deduct costs or attorneys’ fees on account of this provision.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Next, AES contends that the Asset Purchase Agreement allows it to deduct litigation\\nexpenses. AES relies on two interwoven provisions in this Agreement: the Indemnification\\nProvision and the Offset Provision. Our analysis again rests on the plain and ordinary meaning\\nof these provisions. Rory, 703 N.W.2d at 28.\\n\\n Indemnification Provision. This provision states that Rotondo and the Directional\\nEntities must “indemnify” AES from the costs of litigation in a variety of circumstances,\\nincluding “any claim, litigation or other action of any nature arising out of any act . . . prior to the\\ndate” the deal closed. R. 1, Pg. ID 19. The provision further requires Rotondo to indemnify\\nAES for litigation expenses incurred in “enforc[ing] the indemnification obligations.” Id. The\\nIndemnification Provision may indeed encompass expenses incurred in this litigation since\\nRotondo owed taxes and did not pay his loan before the deal closed.\\n\\n While Rotondo may owe AES money, it does not follow that AES can automatically\\ndeduct what it thinks Rotondo owes from the Consulting Fees. The Indemnification Provision\\ndoes not create an automatic right for AES to be paid. Instead, this provision qualifies Rotondo’s\\nindemnification obligation by stating that Rotondo must pay after AES has made a “demand.”\\nId. Without a demand, there is no right to payment under the contract. But there is no evidence\\nthat AES made such a demand—and thus no evidence that the Indemnification Provision has\\neven been triggered.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n Offset Provision. AES alternatively suggests that the last line of the Indemnification\\nProvision, called the Offset Provision, proves that it has an automatic right to deduct costs and\\nattorneys’ fees. The Offset Provision states that AES “shall have a right to offset such losses,\\ndamages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees against any sums owed by\\n[AES] to [Rotondo].” Id. AES thus argues that deducting costs and attorneys’ fees from the\\nConsulting Fees is merely executing this “right to offset.”\\n\\n AES’s argument once again falls short because it failed to consider the full context of the\\nOffset Provision. The Offset Provision only provides that an “offset” can occur for “such losses,\\ndamages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.” Id. (emphasis added).\\nBut does this mean that AES can offset automatically—and whenever it pleases—any losses\\ncaused by Rotondo against the fees owed him? What are “such . . . costs”? We can figure that\\nout with the help of a canon of textual interpretation: a “demonstrative adjective generally refers\\nto the nearest reasonable antecedent,” i.e., when a word like “such” is used, it is normally\\nreferring to something mentioned previously. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law:\\nThe Interpretation of Legal Texts § 18 (2012); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 27–28 (2003);\\nsee also Sims’s Lessee v. Irvine, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 425, 444 n.* (1799) (“The rule is, that ‘such’\\napplies to the last antecedent, unless the sense of the passage requires a different construction.”).\\n\\n Applying this canon, we look to what came before the Offset Provision in the Asset\\nPurchase Agreement. Immediately preceding the Offset Provision is a reference to costs\\nincurred when “enforc[ing] the indemnification obligations.” R. 1, Pg. ID 19. Perhaps “such”\\nrefers only to these enforcement costs. If that is the case, then AES is out of luck; no\\nenforcement costs currently exist because AES has not sought to enforce Rotondo’s\\nindemnification obligations. But the text of the Offset Provision cuts against interpreting “such”\\nas referring exclusively to costs incurred in enforcing the Indemnification Provision. The Offset\\nProvision refers not merely to “such . . . costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees”—losses that could\\nbe incurred trying to enforce the Indemnification Provision—but also “such . . . damages,\\nliabilities, [and] deficiencies.” It is hard to imagine how AES could incur the latter sort of\\nlosses—e.g., “damages”—by trying to enforce the Indemnification Provision. And the mention\\nof “damages, liabilities, [and] deficiencies” in the Offset Provision likely refers back to\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n“damage[s], liabilit[ies] or deficienc[ies]” mentioned in the opening sentence of the\\nIndemnification Provision. In other words, the Offset Provision is best read as referring to both\\nthe costs of enforcing the Indemnification Provision and the total costs that could be\\nindemnified.3\\n\\n But the broad coverage of the Offset Provision does not help AES here. Although the\\nOffset Provision allows AES to offset any sums Rotondo is obligated to pay under the\\nIndemnification Provision, Rotondo is not obligated to pay anything under that provision until\\nAES has made a demand. Because there is no evidence in the record that AES has made such a\\ndemand, Rotondo is not currently obligated to pay under the Indemnification Provision. And\\nthere is thus no outstanding payment obligation to trigger the Offset Provision.\\n\\n As there is no basis in either the Consulting Agreement or the provisions of the Asset\\nPurchase Agreement for AES to deduct its costs and attorneys’ fees from this litigation, we\\naffirm the district court’s contract interpretation. AES owes Rotondo the full amount of the\\nConsulting Fees, without deductions.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Although AES owes the full value of the Consulting Fees, Rotondo will not get to keep\\nthat money. Instead, the Consulting Fees will go to one of the two entities to whom he owes\\nmoney: either Akouri or the IRS. Both have a claim to Rotondo’s money. We must decide\\nwhich one has seniority, i.e., who gets paid. The district court granted summary judgment in\\nfavor of the IRS. Akouri challenges this conclusion, and we review de novo. 1st Source Bank v.\\nWilson Bank & Tr., 735 F.3d 500, 502 (6th Cir. 2013).\\n\\n Federal law controls the priority of a federal tax lien vis-à-vis other property interests.\\nUnited States v. Dishman Indep. Oil, Inc., 46 F.3d 523, 526 (6th Cir. 1995). And “priority for\\npurposes of federal law is governed by the common-law principle that ‘first in time is the first in\\nright.’” United States v. McDermott, 507 U.S. 447, 449 (1993) (quoting United States v. New\\nBritain, 347 U.S. 81, 85 (1954)). So it all comes down to timing: did the IRS’s interest come\\n\\n 3It would also be strange if AES could offset losses from trying to enforce the indemnification provision\\nbut could not offset the losses Rotondo had to indemnify in the first place.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nfirst, or did Akouri’s? We measure the timing of a federal tax lien by when the IRS gave notice\\nof its lien. 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a), (f). And we measure the timing of state security interests, like\\nAkouri’s, by when they become “choate”—i.e., complete or perfected. See United States v.\\nEquitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 384 U.S. 323, 328 (1966); see also Black’s Law\\nDictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining choate). In general, these interests become “choate” as a\\nresult of a state judgment or state attachment filing (“when there is nothing more to be done”).\\nBlachy v. Butcher, 221 F.3d 896, 905–06 (6th Cir. 2000).\\n\\n The IRS was first. The United States filed its notices of tax liens against Rotondo’s\\nassets between October 2007 and September 2013. Akouri, in contrast, did not receive a state\\njudgment against Rotondo until December 2013. Thus, the IRS’s liens have priority.\\n\\n Akouri does not dispute this analysis. Instead, Akouri tries to get around the IRS’s clear\\npriority in two ways. Both are an attempt to recategorize the customer list assets as originally\\nbelonging to Apex rather than the Directional Entities. If Apex really sold those customer lists to\\nAES, then Akouri says it can take priority over the IRS because of its purportedly senior security\\ninterest in Apex.\\n\\n First, Akouri claims Apex actually owned the customer lists that Rotondo sold to AES.\\nIn order to survive summary judgment on this theory, Akouri needed to first raise a genuine\\ndispute of material fact as to the ownership of the customer lists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,\\n477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). But Akouri has pointed to nothing in the record that disputes the\\npieces of evidence that tend to prove that the Directional Entities, not Apex, owned and then sold\\nthe customer lists to AES. First, the Asset Purchase Agreement contains schedules detailing\\nwhich customers’ information was being sold. These schedules list the owner of each\\ncustomer’s information, and only the Directional Entities are listed as owners. Second, there are\\ntwo examples of contracts that the Directional Entities proposed to a client to offer services.\\nThese “exemplar contracts” offer some proof that the Directional Entities were the companies\\nworking with the customers. Third, Rotondo submitted an affidavit stating that the “customer\\nassets . . . were owned by entities which were at no time subject to a lien . . . of Akouri.” R. 53-\\n6, Pg. ID 1529. Since Akouri did not have a lien on the Directional Entities, this too implies it\\nwas the Directional Entities that sold the customer lists.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n While this may not be the strongest conceivable evidence, summary judgment is first and\\nforemost about dispute resolution; facts must be disputed by the party, like Akouri, that opposes\\nsummary judgment. See Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 378–79 (6th Cir. 2007)\\n(holding that the party opposing summary judgment is required to point to evidence in the record\\nthat creates an issue of fact). Rather than dispute any of the IRS’s evidence, Akouri has merely\\nsaid that there is not enough evidence to conclusively say the Directional Entities owned the\\ncustomer lists. We agree with the district court, however, that casting only “metaphysical doubt”\\nis insufficient to survive summary judgment. Matushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio\\nCorp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).4\\n\\n Akouri did, however, offer evidence that went to its second and altogether different\\ntheory of why Apex should be considered the owner of the customer lists. Even if the\\nDirectional Entities technically owned the customer lists, Akouri argues that they did not observe\\nvarious corporate formalities separating them from Apex. Thus, according to Akouri, the\\nDirectional Entities are just sham companies—“alter egos” of Apex. As “alter egos,” the\\nDirectional Entities would collapse back into one corporate form with Apex. And Akouri says it\\nhas a senior security interest in Apex.\\n\\n But this theory fails as well. As mentioned, a security interest can only defeat an IRS tax\\nlien if it is “choate.” Blachy, 221 F.3d at 905–06. An interest is only “choate” if it does not\\nrequire an additional judicial determination. Cf. United States v. Vermont, 377 U.S. 351, 355\\n(1964). It is one thing to casually describe the Directional Entities as “alter egos” of Apex, but it\\nis another to consider them “alter egos” as a matter of law. For the Directional Entities to be\\nlegally considered “alter egos,” a court would need to first make a judicial determination. See,\\ne.g., In re Two Springs Membership Club, 408 B.R. 453, 468–69 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009),\\nreversed on other grounds by United States v. Camp Coast to Coast, Inc., 424 B.R. 251 (N.D.\\nOhio 2010). Thus, Akouri’s interest under this theory remains inchoate because of the need for\\n\\n\\n\\n 4We also follow the district court in declining to decide if a Michigan state court decision has res judicata\\neffect on this question. It is unclear whether the state court decided the ownership question. New Hampshire v.\\nMaine, 532 U.S. 742, 748–49 (2001) (requiring “an issue of fact or law actually [be] litigated and resolved in a valid\\ncourt determination”).\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nan additional judicial determination. And an “inchoate” interest cannot take priority over the\\nIRS’s tax lien. Cf. McDermott, 507 U.S. at 449.\\n\\n Moreover, even if a court were to now decide that the Directional Entities are sham\\ncompanies, that determination would be too late. An interest becomes “choate” at a specific\\npoint in time—the federal law of priority does not allow for interests to “relat[e] back” to an\\nearlier time. Blachy, 221 F.3d at 905. Akouri’s interest would be choate as of 2019, not some\\nearlier date. But the IRS’s tax liens indisputably date to well before 2019, so Akouri’s interest\\nwould still not be “first in time.” Id.\\n\\n Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment in favor of the IRS.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n Akouri appeals two additional decisions by the district court. First, the district court\\ndenied Akouri’s motion for supplemental briefing, which included a request that the court\\nconsider new evidence on the ownership of the customer lists. Second, the district court declined\\nto exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Akouri’s additional state law fraudulent transfer claim.\\nAkouri concedes that we can only reverse these decisions if they were an abuse of discretion.\\nJones v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare Sys., 84 F. App’x 597, 599 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing In\\nre Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498, 516 (6th Cir. 1996)) (supplemental briefing); Harper v.\\nAutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 200 (6th Cir. 2004) (supplemental jurisdiction).\\n\\n Supplemental Briefing. After the magistrate judge finished his report and\\nrecommendation—and nearly three months after briefing concerning that report and\\nrecommendation had been completed—Akouri sought permission to file a supplemental brief\\nwith new evidence attached. This evidence came from new depositions that Akouri took in a\\nstate court action involving Rotondo and AES. Akouri says that the district court should have\\nconsidered this evidence. Docket control, however, is something that rests in the “sound\\ndiscretion of the district court.” In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d at 516 (alteration omitted).\\nAnd the district court pointed out that Akouri had the opportunity to request these depositions\\nduring federal discovery but did not. Had it sought these depositions, it then could have used\\nthem to develop additional arguments and included them in the various summary judgment\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nmotions. Further, to the extent that this evidence would lead to new legal arguments, the district\\ncourt explained Akouri had forfeited those arguments. See Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895,\\n902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000). Such reasoning was not an abuse of discretion.\\n\\n Akouri argues otherwise. Akouri says the district court would have denied an earlier\\nrequest for discovery as duplicative of its state court discovery. Therefore, it would have been\\nfruitless to ask. But we cannot know what the district court would have done if given the\\nopportunity to review Akouri’s request for evidence earlier. All we know is there was nothing\\nbarring Akouri from making a good faith request for discovery during the time allotted by the\\nparties, the magistrate judge, and the district court. Akouri made a strategic decision not to make\\nthat request. And when it finally got the depositions and sought to introduce them, the district\\ncourt reasonably explained why it was too late. Cf. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254\\n(1936) (stating that a court has inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its\\ndocket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”).\\n\\n In one last argument, Akouri points to an unpublished decision, Muhammad v. Close.\\nNo. 08–1944, 2009 WL 8755520, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 20, 2009) (order). But Muhammad did\\nnothing more than recognize the age-old truth that district courts must actually use the discretion\\nthat they have. Id. (remanding because district court did not appear to use its discretion in\\ndeciding whether to accept late evidence); cf. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here,\\nthe district court did so in its reasoned discussion of Akouri’s request. It simply exercised that\\ndiscretion in a way contrary to what Akouri wanted. Indeed, a district court never abuses its\\ndiscretion when it holds that an issue not actually presented to a magistrate judge is forfeited.\\nSee United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Marshall v. Chater, 75\\nF.3d 1421, 1426–27 (10th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases holding that issues raised for the first time\\nin objections to a magistrate judge’s report are deemed forfeited)). And Muhammad did not\\ncreate a different rule (nor could it). Accordingly, Muhammad neither calls into question the\\ndiscretion that the district court used here nor alters the district court’s forfeiture analysis.\\n\\n Supplemental Jurisdiction. As part of its cross-complaint below, Akouri alleged that the\\nsale of the customer lists from the Directional Entities to AES was a fraudulent conveyance\\nunder Michigan law. The district court dismissed this claim after it granted summary judgment\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nin favor of the IRS. Akouri’s dispute with the IRS was the basis of the court’s jurisdiction;\\nAkouri’s Michigan-law claim merely tagged along based on supplemental jurisdiction. This\\ndismissal was not an abuse of discretion. “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are\\neliminated before trial,” district courts should decline to “exercise jurisdiction over the remaining\\nstate-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7 (1988).\\n\\n Akouri claims this is not a usual case. It points out that three years had passed since it\\nfiled its state law claim. Therefore, Akouri argues, it was imprudent for the district court to\\ndismiss the state law claim since the litigation was no longer in its “early stages.” Id. at 350.\\nBut the progression of litigation is not measured so much in years as in the various and familiar\\nstages laid out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—there is the filing of the complaint,\\nnotice, answers to the complaint or motions to dismiss, discovery, motions for summary\\njudgment, trial, and final judgment. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 4, 12, 26, 40, 54, 56. So the\\nproper metric is how far Akouri’s state law claim was along these stages. The answer? Not far.\\nAkouri points to no discovery undertaken for this claim, and the docket discloses no motions for\\nsummary judgment on this claim either. Indeed, Akouri concedes that it instead sought most of\\nits discovery on these issues in the parallel state case. Thus, in terms of the stages of litigation\\nand the resources to be expended on it, Akouri’s state law claim was in its very early stages\\nindeed. See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559–60 & n.6 (2007) (discussing the\\nburdens and resource intensive nature of the discovery stage of litigation). The district court did\\nnot abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Akouri’s state law\\nclaim.\\n\\n * * *\\n\\n The district court properly interpreted the agreements between AES and Rotondo,\\nproperly granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS’s claim for the Consulting Fees, and did\\nnot abuse its discretion in denying Akouri’s requests for supplemental briefing and supplemental\\njurisdiction.\\n\\n We affirm.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4398245/\", \"author_raw\": \"THAPAR, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"SUHRHEINRICH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"THAPAR"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"LARSEN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4620992/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: AES-APEX EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC.; AES-Apex Employer Solutions, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees (17-2068), Plaintiffs-Appellants (17-2211), v. Dino ROTONDO; Richard Mark; United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees (17-2068 & 17-2211), Akouri Investments, LLC, Intervenor-Appellant (17-2068), Intervenor-Appellee (17-2211).\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0094p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n AES-APEX EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC.; AES-APEX ┐\n EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS, INC., │\n Plaintiffs-Appellees (17-2068), │\n Plaintiffs-Appellants (17-2211), │\n │\n > Nos. 17-2068/2211\n v. │\n │\n │\n DINO ROTONDO; RICHARD MARK; UNITED STATES │\n DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE │\n SERVICE, │\n Defendants-Appellees (17-2068 & 17-2211), │\n │\n │\n AKOURI INVESTMENTS, LLC,\n │\n Intervenor-Appellant (17-2068), │\n Intervenor-Appellee (17-2211). │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\n No. 2:13-cv-14519—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge.\n\n Argued: May 8, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 17, 2019\n\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: H. Nathan Resnick, RESNICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Akouri\nInvestments. Geoffrey J. Klimas, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,\nWashington, D.C., for United States Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service.\nScott D. MacDonald, DIXON & MACDONALD, Southfield, Michigan, for AES-Apex. ON\nBRIEF: H. Nathan Resnick, RESNICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Akouri\nInvestments. Geoffrey J. Klimas, Teresa E. McLaughlin, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 2\n\n\nOF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for United States Department of the Treasury and Internal\nRevenue Service. Scott D. MacDonald, DIXON & MACDONALD, Southfield, Michigan, for\nAES-Apex.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Dino Rotondo serves as a consultant for AES-Apex. This case\nis a dispute about who gets the money that he makes consulting. The IRS says that it should get\nthe money because Rotondo is behind on his taxes. Akouri Investments says it should get the\nmoney instead because Akouri loaned Rotondo money that he has not paid back yet. And\nfinally, AES-Apex says that it should get to keep some of the money pursuant to its contract with\nRotondo. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS, and we affirm.\n\n I.\n\n As relevant here, Dino Rotondo was the sole owner of Apex Administrative Services\n(“Apex”). Apex, in turn, wholly owned four limited liability companies: Apex HR Services,\nLLC, Pinnacle HR Services, LLC, AS Holdings Group, LLC, and AS South, LLC (collectively,\nthe “Directional Entities”). Together with these Directional Entities, Apex provided a variety of\nservices, such as human resources, to different clients.\n\n Eventually Rotondo opted to sell the Directional Entities’ key asset—their customer lists,\nessentially lists of who their clients were. He sold the customer lists in a deal with two firms,\nAES-Apex Solutions, Inc. and AES-Apex Employer Services, Inc. (collectively, “AES”). As\npart of that deal, AES agreed to pay Rotondo a share of its gross profits in the form of\n“Consulting Fees.”\n\n Yet the bad news for Rotondo is that he will not keep the Consulting Fees because he\nowes a lot of money and is behind on his payments. Two entities have claims to collect\nRotondo’s Consulting Fees. First, a firm named Akouri Investments, LLC (“Akouri”) loaned\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 3\n\n\nmoney to one of Rotondo’s other companies.1 In return for that loan, Akouri gained a security\ninterest in Apex’s assets. When Rotondo failed to pay back his loan, Akouri obtained a\njudgment against Rotondo and Apex for $1.4 million.\n\n Second, Rotondo owes the IRS. Over the years, Rotondo failed to pay his taxes, so the\nIRS has assessed various tax penalties against him. As of 2015, Rotondo owed the IRS\n$3.4 million. To try and get that money, the IRS filed several notices of tax liens against\nRotondo, Apex, and the Directional Entities.\n\n Once Rotondo started earning his Consulting Fees, both the IRS and Akouri saw an\nopportunity to get what they were owed. The IRS contacted AES directly, claiming it was\nentitled to the Consulting Fees because of its tax liens. Then, several months later, Akouri\nclaimed that it was entitled to the Consulting Fees. Facing conflicting claims to the Consulting\nFees—and the possibility of having to pay twice—AES filed this interpleader action in state\ncourt. Interpleader permits a party facing claims “that may expose [it] to double or multiple\nliability” to join all claimants as defendants in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1). The IRS\nremoved the case to federal district court, and the district court granted summary judgment in its\nfavor. The parties now appeal several of the district court’s decisions. We review each in turn.\n\n II.\n\n Before determining whether the IRS or Akouri gets the Consulting Fees, we must first\nfigure out the size of the pot—i.e., how much money does AES owe Rotondo? That turns on\ntwo sets of agreements between AES and Rotondo: the Consulting Agreement and the Asset\nPurchase Agreement.2 AES claims that both of those agreements allow it to deduct the costs and\nattorneys’ fees that it incurs in this case from what it owes Rotondo in Consulting Fees. The\ndistrict court disagreed and found instead that AES must pay the “full value” of those Consulting\n\n\n\n 1Another individual, Richard Mark, also loaned money to Rotondo’s companies, but Mark’s interest is not\na subject of this appeal.\n 2AES and Rotondo signed two Consulting Agreements and two Asset Purchase Agreements that the parties\ntreat as having substantially identical terms except for the AES signatory (either AES-Apex Solutions, Inc. or AES-\nApex Employer Services, Inc.). We refer to these agreements in the singular.\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 4\n\n\nFees. This is a matter of contract interpretation that we review de novo. Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v.\nOrient Overseas Container Line Ltd., 525 F.3d 409, 421 (6th Cir. 2008).\n\n A.\n\n AES first claims that the Consulting Agreement allows it to deduct litigation expenses.\nIn AES’s Consulting Agreement with Rotondo, AES agreed to pay Rotondo a percentage of\ngross profits as Consulting Fees. But the agreement permits it to deduct two types of costs from\nthose gross profits: the taxes that AES owes on its own profits and “direct expenses attributable\nto the employees leased under [a client’s] account.” R. 1, Pg. ID 52. AES claims that the costs\nof this litigation (including related state court actions) are such “direct expenses.” In interpreting\nthe Consulting Agreement, we apply the “plain and ordinary meaning” of these terms. Rory v.\nCont’l Ins. Co., 703 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Mich. 2005); see also Stryker Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins.\nCo. of Pittsburgh, 842 F.3d 422, 426 (6th Cir. 2016) (applying Michigan law).\n\n This “direct expenses” argument does not go very far. Even assuming the meaning of the\nphrase “direct expenses” could include the costs of this litigation, we do not interpret contract\nlanguage in isolation. We must read “direct expenses” in context. See Mich. Twp. Participating\nPlan v. Pavolich, 591 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). The full clause in the contract\nsays that AES is only entitled to deduct “direct expenses attributable to the employees leased\nunder [a client’s] account.” R. 1, Pg. ID 52 (emphasis added). “Attributable” essentially means\n“produced by.” Oxford English Dictionary (2012). And the “employees leased” are AES’s\nclients’ employees. Thus, the “direct expenses” clause covers expenses “produced by” the\nemployees of one of AES’s clients. But neither AES’s clients nor its clients’ employees did\nanything to produce these litigation expenses. None of AES’s clients are parties to this litigation,\nand there is no suggestion that any of the clients’ employees are bringing claims for Rotondo’s\nConsulting Fees—only the IRS and Akouri are. Indeed, AES’s briefing does not even mention\nits clients’ employees or point to any evidence that the costs of this litigation could be attributed\nto its clients’ employees. The litigation expenses from this case are not “attributable” to any of\nAES’s employees at all—they are “attributable” to AES’s lawyers, the IRS, and Akouri. So,\nunder the plain meaning of the Consulting Agreement, AES cannot deduct its litigation expenses\nfrom Rotondo’s Consulting Fees.\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 5\n\n\n AES counters by saying that the purpose of this provision was to enhance its profitability.\nThus, anything that lowers its profitability should be deducted from the Consulting Fees. But\nsuch an expansive definition does not fit the language to which the parties agreed. Again, that\nlanguage expressly limits AES’s deductions to only two categories—not anything that could\n“significantly diminish[]” profit. 17-2068 Appellant Br. 20. We “honor the intent of the parties”\nby enforcing their agreement “as written”—not based on whatever vague purposes can be\nsupplied after the fact. Superior Commc’ns v. City of Riverview, 881 F.3d 432, 438 (6th Cir.\n2018) (quoting Rasheed v. Chrysler Corp., 517 N.W.2d 19, 29 n.28 (Mich. 1998)). Accordingly,\nAES may not deduct costs or attorneys’ fees on account of this provision.\n\n B.\n\n Next, AES contends that the Asset Purchase Agreement allows it to deduct litigation\nexpenses. AES relies on two interwoven provisions in this Agreement: the Indemnification\nProvision and the Offset Provision. Our analysis again rests on the plain and ordinary meaning\nof these provisions. Rory, 703 N.W.2d at 28.\n\n Indemnification Provision. This provision states that Rotondo and the Directional\nEntities must “indemnify” AES from the costs of litigation in a variety of circumstances,\nincluding “any claim, litigation or other action of any nature arising out of any act . . . prior to the\ndate” the deal closed. R. 1, Pg. ID 19. The provision further requires Rotondo to indemnify\nAES for litigation expenses incurred in “enforc[ing] the indemnification obligations.” Id. The\nIndemnification Provision may indeed encompass expenses incurred in this litigation since\nRotondo owed taxes and did not pay his loan before the deal closed.\n\n While Rotondo may owe AES money, it does not follow that AES can automatically\ndeduct what it thinks Rotondo owes from the Consulting Fees. The Indemnification Provision\ndoes not create an automatic right for AES to be paid. Instead, this provision qualifies Rotondo’s\nindemnification obligation by stating that Rotondo must pay after AES has made a “demand.”\nId. Without a demand, there is no right to payment under the contract. But there is no evidence\nthat AES made such a demand—and thus no evidence that the Indemnification Provision has\neven been triggered.\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 6\n\n\n Offset Provision. AES alternatively suggests that the last line of the Indemnification\nProvision, called the Offset Provision, proves that it has an automatic right to deduct costs and\nattorneys’ fees. The Offset Provision states that AES “shall have a right to offset such losses,\ndamages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees against any sums owed by\n[AES] to [Rotondo].” Id. AES thus argues that deducting costs and attorneys’ fees from the\nConsulting Fees is merely executing this “right to offset.”\n\n AES’s argument once again falls short because it failed to consider the full context of the\nOffset Provision. The Offset Provision only provides that an “offset” can occur for “such losses,\ndamages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.” Id. (emphasis added).\nBut does this mean that AES can offset automatically—and whenever it pleases—any losses\ncaused by Rotondo against the fees owed him? What are “such . . . costs”? We can figure that\nout with the help of a canon of textual interpretation: a “demonstrative adjective generally refers\nto the nearest reasonable antecedent,” i.e., when a word like “such” is used, it is normally\nreferring to something mentioned previously. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law:\nThe Interpretation of Legal Texts § 18 (2012); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 27–28 (2003);\nsee also Sims’s Lessee v. Irvine, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 425, 444 n.* (1799) (“The rule is, that ‘such’\napplies to the last antecedent, unless the sense of the passage requires a different construction.”).\n\n Applying this canon, we look to what came before the Offset Provision in the Asset\nPurchase Agreement. Immediately preceding the Offset Provision is a reference to costs\nincurred when “enforc[ing] the indemnification obligations.” R. 1, Pg. ID 19. Perhaps “such”\nrefers only to these enforcement costs. If that is the case, then AES is out of luck; no\nenforcement costs currently exist because AES has not sought to enforce Rotondo’s\nindemnification obligations. But the text of the Offset Provision cuts against interpreting “such”\nas referring exclusively to costs incurred in enforcing the Indemnification Provision. The Offset\nProvision refers not merely to “such . . . costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees”—losses that could\nbe incurred trying to enforce the Indemnification Provision—but also “such . . . damages,\nliabilities, [and] deficiencies.” It is hard to imagine how AES could incur the latter sort of\nlosses—e.g., “damages”—by trying to enforce the Indemnification Provision. And the mention\nof “damages, liabilities, [and] deficiencies” in the Offset Provision likely refers back to\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 7\n\n\n“damage[s], liabilit[ies] or deficienc[ies]” mentioned in the opening sentence of the\nIndemnification Provision. In other words, the Offset Provision is best read as referring to both\nthe costs of enforcing the Indemnification Provision and the total costs that could be\nindemnified.3\n\n But the broad coverage of the Offset Provision does not help AES here. Although the\nOffset Provision allows AES to offset any sums Rotondo is obligated to pay under the\nIndemnification Provision, Rotondo is not obligated to pay anything under that provision until\nAES has made a demand. Because there is no evidence in the record that AES has made such a\ndemand, Rotondo is not currently obligated to pay under the Indemnification Provision. And\nthere is thus no outstanding payment obligation to trigger the Offset Provision.\n\n As there is no basis in either the Consulting Agreement or the provisions of the Asset\nPurchase Agreement for AES to deduct its costs and attorneys’ fees from this litigation, we\naffirm the district court’s contract interpretation. AES owes Rotondo the full amount of the\nConsulting Fees, without deductions.\n\n III.\n\n Although AES owes the full value of the Consulting Fees, Rotondo will not get to keep\nthat money. Instead, the Consulting Fees will go to one of the two entities to whom he owes\nmoney: either Akouri or the IRS. Both have a claim to Rotondo’s money. We must decide\nwhich one has seniority, i.e., who gets paid. The district court granted summary judgment in\nfavor of the IRS. Akouri challenges this conclusion, and we review de novo. 1st Source Bank v.\nWilson Bank & Tr., 735 F.3d 500, 502 (6th Cir. 2013).\n\n Federal law controls the priority of a federal tax lien vis-à-vis other property interests.\nUnited States v. Dishman Indep. Oil, Inc., 46 F.3d 523, 526 (6th Cir. 1995). And “priority for\npurposes of federal law is governed by the common-law principle that ‘first in time is the first in\nright.’” United States v. McDermott, 507 U.S. 447, 449 (1993) (quoting United States v. New\nBritain, 347 U.S. 81, 85 (1954)). So it all comes down to timing: did the IRS’s interest come\n\n 3It would also be strange if AES could offset losses from trying to enforce the indemnification provision\nbut could not offset the losses Rotondo had to indemnify in the first place.\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 8\n\n\nfirst, or did Akouri’s? We measure the timing of a federal tax lien by when the IRS gave notice\nof its lien. 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a), (f). And we measure the timing of state security interests, like\nAkouri’s, by when they become “choate”—i.e., complete or perfected. See United States v.\nEquitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 384 U.S. 323, 328 (1966); see also Black’s Law\nDictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining choate). In general, these interests become “choate” as a\nresult of a state judgment or state attachment filing (“when there is nothing more to be done”).\nBlachy v. Butcher, 221 F.3d 896, 905–06 (6th Cir. 2000).\n\n The IRS was first. The United States filed its notices of tax liens against Rotondo’s\nassets between October 2007 and September 2013. Akouri, in contrast, did not receive a state\njudgment against Rotondo until December 2013. Thus, the IRS’s liens have priority.\n\n Akouri does not dispute this analysis. Instead, Akouri tries to get around the IRS’s clear\npriority in two ways. Both are an attempt to recategorize the customer list assets as originally\nbelonging to Apex rather than the Directional Entities. If Apex really sold those customer lists to\nAES, then Akouri says it can take priority over the IRS because of its purportedly senior security\ninterest in Apex.\n\n First, Akouri claims Apex actually owned the customer lists that Rotondo sold to AES.\nIn order to survive summary judgment on this theory, Akouri needed to first raise a genuine\ndispute of material fact as to the ownership of the customer lists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,\n477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). But Akouri has pointed to nothing in the record that disputes the\npieces of evidence that tend to prove that the Directional Entities, not Apex, owned and then sold\nthe customer lists to AES. First, the Asset Purchase Agreement contains schedules detailing\nwhich customers’ information was being sold. These schedules list the owner of each\ncustomer’s information, and only the Directional Entities are listed as owners. Second, there are\ntwo examples of contracts that the Directional Entities proposed to a client to offer services.\nThese “exemplar contracts” offer some proof that the Directional Entities were the companies\nworking with the customers. Third, Rotondo submitted an affidavit stating that the “customer\nassets . . . were owned by entities which were at no time subject to a lien . . . of Akouri.” R. 53-\n6, Pg. ID 1529. Since Akouri did not have a lien on the Directional Entities, this too implies it\nwas the Directional Entities that sold the customer lists.\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 9\n\n\n While this may not be the strongest conceivable evidence, summary judgment is first and\nforemost about dispute resolution; facts must be disputed by the party, like Akouri, that opposes\nsummary judgment. See Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 378–79 (6th Cir. 2007)\n(holding that the party opposing summary judgment is required to point to evidence in the record\nthat creates an issue of fact). Rather than dispute any of the IRS’s evidence, Akouri has merely\nsaid that there is not enough evidence to conclusively say the Directional Entities owned the\ncustomer lists. We agree with the district court, however, that casting only “metaphysical doubt”\nis insufficient to survive summary judgment. Matushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio\nCorp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).4\n\n Akouri did, however, offer evidence that went to its second and altogether different\ntheory of why Apex should be considered the owner of the customer lists. Even if the\nDirectional Entities technically owned the customer lists, Akouri argues that they did not observe\nvarious corporate formalities separating them from Apex. Thus, according to Akouri, the\nDirectional Entities are just sham companies—“alter egos” of Apex. As “alter egos,” the\nDirectional Entities would collapse back into one corporate form with Apex. And Akouri says it\nhas a senior security interest in Apex.\n\n But this theory fails as well. As mentioned, a security interest can only defeat an IRS tax\nlien if it is “choate.” Blachy, 221 F.3d at 905–06. An interest is only “choate” if it does not\nrequire an additional judicial determination. Cf. United States v. Vermont, 377 U.S. 351, 355\n(1964). It is one thing to casually describe the Directional Entities as “alter egos” of Apex, but it\nis another to consider them “alter egos” as a matter of law. For the Directional Entities to be\nlegally considered “alter egos,” a court would need to first make a judicial determination. See,\ne.g., In re Two Springs Membership Club, 408 B.R. 453, 468–69 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009),\nreversed on other grounds by United States v. Camp Coast to Coast, Inc., 424 B.R. 251 (N.D.\nOhio 2010). Thus, Akouri’s interest under this theory remains inchoate because of the need for\n\n\n\n 4We also follow the district court in declining to decide if a Michigan state court decision has res judicata\neffect on this question. It is unclear whether the state court decided the ownership question. New Hampshire v.\nMaine, 532 U.S. 742, 748–49 (2001) (requiring “an issue of fact or law actually [be] litigated and resolved in a valid\ncourt determination”).\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 10\n\n\nan additional judicial determination. And an “inchoate” interest cannot take priority over the\nIRS’s tax lien. Cf. McDermott, 507 U.S. at 449.\n\n Moreover, even if a court were to now decide that the Directional Entities are sham\ncompanies, that determination would be too late. An interest becomes “choate” at a specific\npoint in time—the federal law of priority does not allow for interests to “relat[e] back” to an\nearlier time. Blachy, 221 F.3d at 905. Akouri’s interest would be choate as of 2019, not some\nearlier date. But the IRS’s tax liens indisputably date to well before 2019, so Akouri’s interest\nwould still not be “first in time.” Id.\n\n Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment in favor of the IRS.\n\n IV.\n\n Akouri appeals two additional decisions by the district court. First, the district court\ndenied Akouri’s motion for supplemental briefing, which included a request that the court\nconsider new evidence on the ownership of the customer lists. Second, the district court declined\nto exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Akouri’s additional state law fraudulent transfer claim.\nAkouri concedes that we can only reverse these decisions if they were an abuse of discretion.\nJones v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare Sys., 84 F. App’x 597, 599 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing In\nre Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498, 516 (6th Cir. 1996)) (supplemental briefing); Harper v.\nAutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 200 (6th Cir. 2004) (supplemental jurisdiction).\n\n Supplemental Briefing. After the magistrate judge finished his report and\nrecommendation—and nearly three months after briefing concerning that report and\nrecommendation had been completed—Akouri sought permission to file a supplemental brief\nwith new evidence attached. This evidence came from new depositions that Akouri took in a\nstate court action involving Rotondo and AES. Akouri says that the district court should have\nconsidered this evidence. Docket control, however, is something that rests in the “sound\ndiscretion of the district court.” In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d at 516 (alteration omitted).\nAnd the district court pointed out that Akouri had the opportunity to request these depositions\nduring federal discovery but did not. Had it sought these depositions, it then could have used\nthem to develop additional arguments and included them in the various summary judgment\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 11\n\n\nmotions. Further, to the extent that this evidence would lead to new legal arguments, the district\ncourt explained Akouri had forfeited those arguments. See Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895,\n902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000). Such reasoning was not an abuse of discretion.\n\n Akouri argues otherwise. Akouri says the district court would have denied an earlier\nrequest for discovery as duplicative of its state court discovery. Therefore, it would have been\nfruitless to ask. But we cannot know what the district court would have done if given the\nopportunity to review Akouri’s request for evidence earlier. All we know is there was nothing\nbarring Akouri from making a good faith request for discovery during the time allotted by the\nparties, the magistrate judge, and the district court. Akouri made a strategic decision not to make\nthat request. And when it finally got the depositions and sought to introduce them, the district\ncourt reasonably explained why it was too late. Cf. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254\n(1936) (stating that a court has inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its\ndocket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”).\n\n In one last argument, Akouri points to an unpublished decision, Muhammad v. Close.\nNo. 08–1944, 2009 WL 8755520, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 20, 2009) (order). But Muhammad did\nnothing more than recognize the age-old truth that district courts must actually use the discretion\nthat they have. Id. (remanding because district court did not appear to use its discretion in\ndeciding whether to accept late evidence); cf. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here,\nthe district court did so in its reasoned discussion of Akouri’s request. It simply exercised that\ndiscretion in a way contrary to what Akouri wanted. Indeed, a district court never abuses its\ndiscretion when it holds that an issue not actually presented to a magistrate judge is forfeited.\nSee United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Marshall v. Chater, 75\nF.3d 1421, 1426–27 (10th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases holding that issues raised for the first time\nin objections to a magistrate judge’s report are deemed forfeited)). And Muhammad did not\ncreate a different rule (nor could it). Accordingly, Muhammad neither calls into question the\ndiscretion that the district court used here nor alters the district court’s forfeiture analysis.\n\n Supplemental Jurisdiction. As part of its cross-complaint below, Akouri alleged that the\nsale of the customer lists from the Directional Entities to AES was a fraudulent conveyance\nunder Michigan law. The district court dismissed this claim after it granted summary judgment\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 12\n\n\nin favor of the IRS. Akouri’s dispute with the IRS was the basis of the court’s jurisdiction;\nAkouri’s Michigan-law claim merely tagged along based on supplemental jurisdiction. This\ndismissal was not an abuse of discretion. “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are\neliminated before trial,” district courts should decline to “exercise jurisdiction over the remaining\nstate-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7 (1988).\n\n Akouri claims this is not a usual case. It points out that three years had passed since it\nfiled its state law claim. Therefore, Akouri argues, it was imprudent for the district court to\ndismiss the state law claim since the litigation was no longer in its “early stages.” Id. at 350.\nBut the progression of litigation is not measured so much in years as in the various and familiar\nstages laid out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—there is the filing of the complaint,\nnotice, answers to the complaint or motions to dismiss, discovery, motions for summary\njudgment, trial, and final judgment. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 4, 12, 26, 40, 54, 56. So the\nproper metric is how far Akouri’s state law claim was along these stages. The answer? Not far.\nAkouri points to no discovery undertaken for this claim, and the docket discloses no motions for\nsummary judgment on this claim either. Indeed, Akouri concedes that it instead sought most of\nits discovery on these issues in the parallel state case. Thus, in terms of the stages of litigation\nand the resources to be expended on it, Akouri’s state law claim was in its very early stages\nindeed. See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559–60 & n.6 (2007) (discussing the\nburdens and resource intensive nature of the discovery stage of litigation). The district court did\nnot abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Akouri’s state law\nclaim.\n\n * * *\n\n The district court properly interpreted the agreements between AES and Rotondo,\nproperly granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS’s claim for the Consulting Fees, and did\nnot abuse its discretion in denying Akouri’s requests for supplemental briefing and supplemental\njurisdiction.\n\n We affirm.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: AES-APEX EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC.; AES-Apex Employer Solutions, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees (17-2068), Plaintiffs-Appellants (17-2211), v. Dino ROTONDO; Richard Mark; United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees (17-2068 & 17-2211), Akouri Investments, LLC, Intervenor-Appellant (17-2068), Intervenor-Appellee (17-2211).\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0094p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n AES-APEX EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC.; AES-APEX ┐\\n EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS, INC., │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees (17-2068), │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants (17-2211), │\\n │\\n > Nos. 17-2068/2211\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n DINO ROTONDO; RICHARD MARK; UNITED STATES │\\n DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE │\\n SERVICE, │\\n Defendants-Appellees (17-2068 & 17-2211), │\\n │\\n │\\n AKOURI INVESTMENTS, LLC,\\n │\\n Intervenor-Appellant (17-2068), │\\n Intervenor-Appellee (17-2211). │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:13-cv-14519—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: May 8, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 17, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: H. Nathan Resnick, RESNICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Akouri\\nInvestments. Geoffrey J. Klimas, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,\\nWashington, D.C., for United States Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service.\\nScott D. MacDonald, DIXON & MACDONALD, Southfield, Michigan, for AES-Apex. ON\\nBRIEF: H. Nathan Resnick, RESNICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Akouri\\nInvestments. Geoffrey J. Klimas, Teresa E. McLaughlin, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nOF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for United States Department of the Treasury and Internal\\nRevenue Service. Scott D. MacDonald, DIXON & MACDONALD, Southfield, Michigan, for\\nAES-Apex.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Dino Rotondo serves as a consultant for AES-Apex. This case\\nis a dispute about who gets the money that he makes consulting. The IRS says that it should get\\nthe money because Rotondo is behind on his taxes. Akouri Investments says it should get the\\nmoney instead because Akouri loaned Rotondo money that he has not paid back yet. And\\nfinally, AES-Apex says that it should get to keep some of the money pursuant to its contract with\\nRotondo. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS, and we affirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n As relevant here, Dino Rotondo was the sole owner of Apex Administrative Services\\n(“Apex”). Apex, in turn, wholly owned four limited liability companies: Apex HR Services,\\nLLC, Pinnacle HR Services, LLC, AS Holdings Group, LLC, and AS South, LLC (collectively,\\nthe “Directional Entities”). Together with these Directional Entities, Apex provided a variety of\\nservices, such as human resources, to different clients.\\n\\n Eventually Rotondo opted to sell the Directional Entities’ key asset—their customer lists,\\nessentially lists of who their clients were. He sold the customer lists in a deal with two firms,\\nAES-Apex Solutions, Inc. and AES-Apex Employer Services, Inc. (collectively, “AES”). As\\npart of that deal, AES agreed to pay Rotondo a share of its gross profits in the form of\\n“Consulting Fees.”\\n\\n Yet the bad news for Rotondo is that he will not keep the Consulting Fees because he\\nowes a lot of money and is behind on his payments. Two entities have claims to collect\\nRotondo’s Consulting Fees. First, a firm named Akouri Investments, LLC (“Akouri”) loaned\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nmoney to one of Rotondo’s other companies.1 In return for that loan, Akouri gained a security\\ninterest in Apex’s assets. When Rotondo failed to pay back his loan, Akouri obtained a\\njudgment against Rotondo and Apex for $1.4 million.\\n\\n Second, Rotondo owes the IRS. Over the years, Rotondo failed to pay his taxes, so the\\nIRS has assessed various tax penalties against him. As of 2015, Rotondo owed the IRS\\n$3.4 million. To try and get that money, the IRS filed several notices of tax liens against\\nRotondo, Apex, and the Directional Entities.\\n\\n Once Rotondo started earning his Consulting Fees, both the IRS and Akouri saw an\\nopportunity to get what they were owed. The IRS contacted AES directly, claiming it was\\nentitled to the Consulting Fees because of its tax liens. Then, several months later, Akouri\\nclaimed that it was entitled to the Consulting Fees. Facing conflicting claims to the Consulting\\nFees—and the possibility of having to pay twice—AES filed this interpleader action in state\\ncourt. Interpleader permits a party facing claims “that may expose [it] to double or multiple\\nliability” to join all claimants as defendants in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1). The IRS\\nremoved the case to federal district court, and the district court granted summary judgment in its\\nfavor. The parties now appeal several of the district court’s decisions. We review each in turn.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Before determining whether the IRS or Akouri gets the Consulting Fees, we must first\\nfigure out the size of the pot—i.e., how much money does AES owe Rotondo? That turns on\\ntwo sets of agreements between AES and Rotondo: the Consulting Agreement and the Asset\\nPurchase Agreement.2 AES claims that both of those agreements allow it to deduct the costs and\\nattorneys’ fees that it incurs in this case from what it owes Rotondo in Consulting Fees. The\\ndistrict court disagreed and found instead that AES must pay the “full value” of those Consulting\\n\\n\\n\\n 1Another individual, Richard Mark, also loaned money to Rotondo’s companies, but Mark’s interest is not\\na subject of this appeal.\\n 2AES and Rotondo signed two Consulting Agreements and two Asset Purchase Agreements that the parties\\ntreat as having substantially identical terms except for the AES signatory (either AES-Apex Solutions, Inc. or AES-\\nApex Employer Services, Inc.). We refer to these agreements in the singular.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nFees. This is a matter of contract interpretation that we review de novo. Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v.\\nOrient Overseas Container Line Ltd., 525 F.3d 409, 421 (6th Cir. 2008).\\n\\n A.\\n\\n AES first claims that the Consulting Agreement allows it to deduct litigation expenses.\\nIn AES’s Consulting Agreement with Rotondo, AES agreed to pay Rotondo a percentage of\\ngross profits as Consulting Fees. But the agreement permits it to deduct two types of costs from\\nthose gross profits: the taxes that AES owes on its own profits and “direct expenses attributable\\nto the employees leased under [a client’s] account.” R. 1, Pg. ID 52. AES claims that the costs\\nof this litigation (including related state court actions) are such “direct expenses.” In interpreting\\nthe Consulting Agreement, we apply the “plain and ordinary meaning” of these terms. Rory v.\\nCont’l Ins. Co., 703 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Mich. 2005); see also Stryker Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins.\\nCo. of Pittsburgh, 842 F.3d 422, 426 (6th Cir. 2016) (applying Michigan law).\\n\\n This “direct expenses” argument does not go very far. Even assuming the meaning of the\\nphrase “direct expenses” could include the costs of this litigation, we do not interpret contract\\nlanguage in isolation. We must read “direct expenses” in context. See Mich. Twp. Participating\\nPlan v. Pavolich, 591 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). The full clause in the contract\\nsays that AES is only entitled to deduct “direct expenses attributable to the employees leased\\nunder [a client’s] account.” R. 1, Pg. ID 52 (emphasis added). “Attributable” essentially means\\n“produced by.” Oxford English Dictionary (2012). And the “employees leased” are AES’s\\nclients’ employees. Thus, the “direct expenses” clause covers expenses “produced by” the\\nemployees of one of AES’s clients. But neither AES’s clients nor its clients’ employees did\\nanything to produce these litigation expenses. None of AES’s clients are parties to this litigation,\\nand there is no suggestion that any of the clients’ employees are bringing claims for Rotondo’s\\nConsulting Fees—only the IRS and Akouri are. Indeed, AES’s briefing does not even mention\\nits clients’ employees or point to any evidence that the costs of this litigation could be attributed\\nto its clients’ employees. The litigation expenses from this case are not “attributable” to any of\\nAES’s employees at all—they are “attributable” to AES’s lawyers, the IRS, and Akouri. So,\\nunder the plain meaning of the Consulting Agreement, AES cannot deduct its litigation expenses\\nfrom Rotondo’s Consulting Fees.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n AES counters by saying that the purpose of this provision was to enhance its profitability.\\nThus, anything that lowers its profitability should be deducted from the Consulting Fees. But\\nsuch an expansive definition does not fit the language to which the parties agreed. Again, that\\nlanguage expressly limits AES’s deductions to only two categories—not anything that could\\n“significantly diminish[]” profit. 17-2068 Appellant Br. 20. We “honor the intent of the parties”\\nby enforcing their agreement “as written”—not based on whatever vague purposes can be\\nsupplied after the fact. Superior Commc’ns v. City of Riverview, 881 F.3d 432, 438 (6th Cir.\\n2018) (quoting Rasheed v. Chrysler Corp., 517 N.W.2d 19, 29 n.28 (Mich. 1998)). Accordingly,\\nAES may not deduct costs or attorneys’ fees on account of this provision.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Next, AES contends that the Asset Purchase Agreement allows it to deduct litigation\\nexpenses. AES relies on two interwoven provisions in this Agreement: the Indemnification\\nProvision and the Offset Provision. Our analysis again rests on the plain and ordinary meaning\\nof these provisions. Rory, 703 N.W.2d at 28.\\n\\n Indemnification Provision. This provision states that Rotondo and the Directional\\nEntities must “indemnify” AES from the costs of litigation in a variety of circumstances,\\nincluding “any claim, litigation or other action of any nature arising out of any act . . . prior to the\\ndate” the deal closed. R. 1, Pg. ID 19. The provision further requires Rotondo to indemnify\\nAES for litigation expenses incurred in “enforc[ing] the indemnification obligations.” Id. The\\nIndemnification Provision may indeed encompass expenses incurred in this litigation since\\nRotondo owed taxes and did not pay his loan before the deal closed.\\n\\n While Rotondo may owe AES money, it does not follow that AES can automatically\\ndeduct what it thinks Rotondo owes from the Consulting Fees. The Indemnification Provision\\ndoes not create an automatic right for AES to be paid. Instead, this provision qualifies Rotondo’s\\nindemnification obligation by stating that Rotondo must pay after AES has made a “demand.”\\nId. Without a demand, there is no right to payment under the contract. But there is no evidence\\nthat AES made such a demand—and thus no evidence that the Indemnification Provision has\\neven been triggered.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n Offset Provision. AES alternatively suggests that the last line of the Indemnification\\nProvision, called the Offset Provision, proves that it has an automatic right to deduct costs and\\nattorneys’ fees. The Offset Provision states that AES “shall have a right to offset such losses,\\ndamages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees against any sums owed by\\n[AES] to [Rotondo].” Id. AES thus argues that deducting costs and attorneys’ fees from the\\nConsulting Fees is merely executing this “right to offset.”\\n\\n AES’s argument once again falls short because it failed to consider the full context of the\\nOffset Provision. The Offset Provision only provides that an “offset” can occur for “such losses,\\ndamages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.” Id. (emphasis added).\\nBut does this mean that AES can offset automatically—and whenever it pleases—any losses\\ncaused by Rotondo against the fees owed him? What are “such . . . costs”? We can figure that\\nout with the help of a canon of textual interpretation: a “demonstrative adjective generally refers\\nto the nearest reasonable antecedent,” i.e., when a word like “such” is used, it is normally\\nreferring to something mentioned previously. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law:\\nThe Interpretation of Legal Texts § 18 (2012); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 27–28 (2003);\\nsee also Sims’s Lessee v. Irvine, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 425, 444 n.* (1799) (“The rule is, that ‘such’\\napplies to the last antecedent, unless the sense of the passage requires a different construction.”).\\n\\n Applying this canon, we look to what came before the Offset Provision in the Asset\\nPurchase Agreement. Immediately preceding the Offset Provision is a reference to costs\\nincurred when “enforc[ing] the indemnification obligations.” R. 1, Pg. ID 19. Perhaps “such”\\nrefers only to these enforcement costs. If that is the case, then AES is out of luck; no\\nenforcement costs currently exist because AES has not sought to enforce Rotondo’s\\nindemnification obligations. But the text of the Offset Provision cuts against interpreting “such”\\nas referring exclusively to costs incurred in enforcing the Indemnification Provision. The Offset\\nProvision refers not merely to “such . . . costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees”—losses that could\\nbe incurred trying to enforce the Indemnification Provision—but also “such . . . damages,\\nliabilities, [and] deficiencies.” It is hard to imagine how AES could incur the latter sort of\\nlosses—e.g., “damages”—by trying to enforce the Indemnification Provision. And the mention\\nof “damages, liabilities, [and] deficiencies” in the Offset Provision likely refers back to\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n“damage[s], liabilit[ies] or deficienc[ies]” mentioned in the opening sentence of the\\nIndemnification Provision. In other words, the Offset Provision is best read as referring to both\\nthe costs of enforcing the Indemnification Provision and the total costs that could be\\nindemnified.3\\n\\n But the broad coverage of the Offset Provision does not help AES here. Although the\\nOffset Provision allows AES to offset any sums Rotondo is obligated to pay under the\\nIndemnification Provision, Rotondo is not obligated to pay anything under that provision until\\nAES has made a demand. Because there is no evidence in the record that AES has made such a\\ndemand, Rotondo is not currently obligated to pay under the Indemnification Provision. And\\nthere is thus no outstanding payment obligation to trigger the Offset Provision.\\n\\n As there is no basis in either the Consulting Agreement or the provisions of the Asset\\nPurchase Agreement for AES to deduct its costs and attorneys’ fees from this litigation, we\\naffirm the district court’s contract interpretation. AES owes Rotondo the full amount of the\\nConsulting Fees, without deductions.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Although AES owes the full value of the Consulting Fees, Rotondo will not get to keep\\nthat money. Instead, the Consulting Fees will go to one of the two entities to whom he owes\\nmoney: either Akouri or the IRS. Both have a claim to Rotondo’s money. We must decide\\nwhich one has seniority, i.e., who gets paid. The district court granted summary judgment in\\nfavor of the IRS. Akouri challenges this conclusion, and we review de novo. 1st Source Bank v.\\nWilson Bank & Tr., 735 F.3d 500, 502 (6th Cir. 2013).\\n\\n Federal law controls the priority of a federal tax lien vis-à-vis other property interests.\\nUnited States v. Dishman Indep. Oil, Inc., 46 F.3d 523, 526 (6th Cir. 1995). And “priority for\\npurposes of federal law is governed by the common-law principle that ‘first in time is the first in\\nright.’” United States v. McDermott, 507 U.S. 447, 449 (1993) (quoting United States v. New\\nBritain, 347 U.S. 81, 85 (1954)). So it all comes down to timing: did the IRS’s interest come\\n\\n 3It would also be strange if AES could offset losses from trying to enforce the indemnification provision\\nbut could not offset the losses Rotondo had to indemnify in the first place.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nfirst, or did Akouri’s? We measure the timing of a federal tax lien by when the IRS gave notice\\nof its lien. 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a), (f). And we measure the timing of state security interests, like\\nAkouri’s, by when they become “choate”—i.e., complete or perfected. See United States v.\\nEquitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 384 U.S. 323, 328 (1966); see also Black’s Law\\nDictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining choate). In general, these interests become “choate” as a\\nresult of a state judgment or state attachment filing (“when there is nothing more to be done”).\\nBlachy v. Butcher, 221 F.3d 896, 905–06 (6th Cir. 2000).\\n\\n The IRS was first. The United States filed its notices of tax liens against Rotondo’s\\nassets between October 2007 and September 2013. Akouri, in contrast, did not receive a state\\njudgment against Rotondo until December 2013. Thus, the IRS’s liens have priority.\\n\\n Akouri does not dispute this analysis. Instead, Akouri tries to get around the IRS’s clear\\npriority in two ways. Both are an attempt to recategorize the customer list assets as originally\\nbelonging to Apex rather than the Directional Entities. If Apex really sold those customer lists to\\nAES, then Akouri says it can take priority over the IRS because of its purportedly senior security\\ninterest in Apex.\\n\\n First, Akouri claims Apex actually owned the customer lists that Rotondo sold to AES.\\nIn order to survive summary judgment on this theory, Akouri needed to first raise a genuine\\ndispute of material fact as to the ownership of the customer lists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,\\n477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). But Akouri has pointed to nothing in the record that disputes the\\npieces of evidence that tend to prove that the Directional Entities, not Apex, owned and then sold\\nthe customer lists to AES. First, the Asset Purchase Agreement contains schedules detailing\\nwhich customers’ information was being sold. These schedules list the owner of each\\ncustomer’s information, and only the Directional Entities are listed as owners. Second, there are\\ntwo examples of contracts that the Directional Entities proposed to a client to offer services.\\nThese “exemplar contracts” offer some proof that the Directional Entities were the companies\\nworking with the customers. Third, Rotondo submitted an affidavit stating that the “customer\\nassets . . . were owned by entities which were at no time subject to a lien . . . of Akouri.” R. 53-\\n6, Pg. ID 1529. Since Akouri did not have a lien on the Directional Entities, this too implies it\\nwas the Directional Entities that sold the customer lists.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n While this may not be the strongest conceivable evidence, summary judgment is first and\\nforemost about dispute resolution; facts must be disputed by the party, like Akouri, that opposes\\nsummary judgment. See Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 378–79 (6th Cir. 2007)\\n(holding that the party opposing summary judgment is required to point to evidence in the record\\nthat creates an issue of fact). Rather than dispute any of the IRS’s evidence, Akouri has merely\\nsaid that there is not enough evidence to conclusively say the Directional Entities owned the\\ncustomer lists. We agree with the district court, however, that casting only “metaphysical doubt”\\nis insufficient to survive summary judgment. Matushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio\\nCorp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).4\\n\\n Akouri did, however, offer evidence that went to its second and altogether different\\ntheory of why Apex should be considered the owner of the customer lists. Even if the\\nDirectional Entities technically owned the customer lists, Akouri argues that they did not observe\\nvarious corporate formalities separating them from Apex. Thus, according to Akouri, the\\nDirectional Entities are just sham companies—“alter egos” of Apex. As “alter egos,” the\\nDirectional Entities would collapse back into one corporate form with Apex. And Akouri says it\\nhas a senior security interest in Apex.\\n\\n But this theory fails as well. As mentioned, a security interest can only defeat an IRS tax\\nlien if it is “choate.” Blachy, 221 F.3d at 905–06. An interest is only “choate” if it does not\\nrequire an additional judicial determination. Cf. United States v. Vermont, 377 U.S. 351, 355\\n(1964). It is one thing to casually describe the Directional Entities as “alter egos” of Apex, but it\\nis another to consider them “alter egos” as a matter of law. For the Directional Entities to be\\nlegally considered “alter egos,” a court would need to first make a judicial determination. See,\\ne.g., In re Two Springs Membership Club, 408 B.R. 453, 468–69 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009),\\nreversed on other grounds by United States v. Camp Coast to Coast, Inc., 424 B.R. 251 (N.D.\\nOhio 2010). Thus, Akouri’s interest under this theory remains inchoate because of the need for\\n\\n\\n\\n 4We also follow the district court in declining to decide if a Michigan state court decision has res judicata\\neffect on this question. It is unclear whether the state court decided the ownership question. New Hampshire v.\\nMaine, 532 U.S. 742, 748–49 (2001) (requiring “an issue of fact or law actually [be] litigated and resolved in a valid\\ncourt determination”).\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nan additional judicial determination. And an “inchoate” interest cannot take priority over the\\nIRS’s tax lien. Cf. McDermott, 507 U.S. at 449.\\n\\n Moreover, even if a court were to now decide that the Directional Entities are sham\\ncompanies, that determination would be too late. An interest becomes “choate” at a specific\\npoint in time—the federal law of priority does not allow for interests to “relat[e] back” to an\\nearlier time. Blachy, 221 F.3d at 905. Akouri’s interest would be choate as of 2019, not some\\nearlier date. But the IRS’s tax liens indisputably date to well before 2019, so Akouri’s interest\\nwould still not be “first in time.” Id.\\n\\n Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment in favor of the IRS.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n Akouri appeals two additional decisions by the district court. First, the district court\\ndenied Akouri’s motion for supplemental briefing, which included a request that the court\\nconsider new evidence on the ownership of the customer lists. Second, the district court declined\\nto exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Akouri’s additional state law fraudulent transfer claim.\\nAkouri concedes that we can only reverse these decisions if they were an abuse of discretion.\\nJones v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare Sys., 84 F. App’x 597, 599 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing In\\nre Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498, 516 (6th Cir. 1996)) (supplemental briefing); Harper v.\\nAutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 200 (6th Cir. 2004) (supplemental jurisdiction).\\n\\n Supplemental Briefing. After the magistrate judge finished his report and\\nrecommendation—and nearly three months after briefing concerning that report and\\nrecommendation had been completed—Akouri sought permission to file a supplemental brief\\nwith new evidence attached. This evidence came from new depositions that Akouri took in a\\nstate court action involving Rotondo and AES. Akouri says that the district court should have\\nconsidered this evidence. Docket control, however, is something that rests in the “sound\\ndiscretion of the district court.” In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d at 516 (alteration omitted).\\nAnd the district court pointed out that Akouri had the opportunity to request these depositions\\nduring federal discovery but did not. Had it sought these depositions, it then could have used\\nthem to develop additional arguments and included them in the various summary judgment\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nmotions. Further, to the extent that this evidence would lead to new legal arguments, the district\\ncourt explained Akouri had forfeited those arguments. See Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895,\\n902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000). Such reasoning was not an abuse of discretion.\\n\\n Akouri argues otherwise. Akouri says the district court would have denied an earlier\\nrequest for discovery as duplicative of its state court discovery. Therefore, it would have been\\nfruitless to ask. But we cannot know what the district court would have done if given the\\nopportunity to review Akouri’s request for evidence earlier. All we know is there was nothing\\nbarring Akouri from making a good faith request for discovery during the time allotted by the\\nparties, the magistrate judge, and the district court. Akouri made a strategic decision not to make\\nthat request. And when it finally got the depositions and sought to introduce them, the district\\ncourt reasonably explained why it was too late. Cf. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254\\n(1936) (stating that a court has inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its\\ndocket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”).\\n\\n In one last argument, Akouri points to an unpublished decision, Muhammad v. Close.\\nNo. 08–1944, 2009 WL 8755520, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 20, 2009) (order). But Muhammad did\\nnothing more than recognize the age-old truth that district courts must actually use the discretion\\nthat they have. Id. (remanding because district court did not appear to use its discretion in\\ndeciding whether to accept late evidence); cf. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here,\\nthe district court did so in its reasoned discussion of Akouri’s request. It simply exercised that\\ndiscretion in a way contrary to what Akouri wanted. Indeed, a district court never abuses its\\ndiscretion when it holds that an issue not actually presented to a magistrate judge is forfeited.\\nSee United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Marshall v. Chater, 75\\nF.3d 1421, 1426–27 (10th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases holding that issues raised for the first time\\nin objections to a magistrate judge’s report are deemed forfeited)). And Muhammad did not\\ncreate a different rule (nor could it). Accordingly, Muhammad neither calls into question the\\ndiscretion that the district court used here nor alters the district court’s forfeiture analysis.\\n\\n Supplemental Jurisdiction. As part of its cross-complaint below, Akouri alleged that the\\nsale of the customer lists from the Directional Entities to AES was a fraudulent conveyance\\nunder Michigan law. The district court dismissed this claim after it granted summary judgment\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nin favor of the IRS. Akouri’s dispute with the IRS was the basis of the court’s jurisdiction;\\nAkouri’s Michigan-law claim merely tagged along based on supplemental jurisdiction. This\\ndismissal was not an abuse of discretion. “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are\\neliminated before trial,” district courts should decline to “exercise jurisdiction over the remaining\\nstate-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7 (1988).\\n\\n Akouri claims this is not a usual case. It points out that three years had passed since it\\nfiled its state law claim. Therefore, Akouri argues, it was imprudent for the district court to\\ndismiss the state law claim since the litigation was no longer in its “early stages.” Id. at 350.\\nBut the progression of litigation is not measured so much in years as in the various and familiar\\nstages laid out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—there is the filing of the complaint,\\nnotice, answers to the complaint or motions to dismiss, discovery, motions for summary\\njudgment, trial, and final judgment. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 4, 12, 26, 40, 54, 56. So the\\nproper metric is how far Akouri’s state law claim was along these stages. The answer? Not far.\\nAkouri points to no discovery undertaken for this claim, and the docket discloses no motions for\\nsummary judgment on this claim either. Indeed, Akouri concedes that it instead sought most of\\nits discovery on these issues in the parallel state case. Thus, in terms of the stages of litigation\\nand the resources to be expended on it, Akouri’s state law claim was in its very early stages\\nindeed. See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559–60 & n.6 (2007) (discussing the\\nburdens and resource intensive nature of the discovery stage of litigation). The district court did\\nnot abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Akouri’s state law\\nclaim.\\n\\n * * *\\n\\n The district court properly interpreted the agreements between AES and Rotondo,\\nproperly granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS’s claim for the Consulting Fees, and did\\nnot abuse its discretion in denying Akouri’s requests for supplemental briefing and supplemental\\njurisdiction.\\n\\n We affirm.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2081,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4621136,"string":"4,621,136"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"AES-Apex Employer Servs. v. Dino Rotondo"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-2211"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"THAPAR, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0094p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n AES-APEX EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC.; AES-APEX ┐\\n EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS, INC., │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees (17-2068), │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants (17-2211), │\\n │\\n > Nos. 17-2068/2211\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n DINO ROTONDO; RICHARD MARK; UNITED STATES │\\n DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE │\\n SERVICE, │\\n Defendants-Appellees (17-2068 & 17-2211), │\\n │\\n │\\n AKOURI INVESTMENTS, LLC,\\n │\\n Intervenor-Appellant (17-2068), │\\n Intervenor-Appellee (17-2211). │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:13-cv-14519—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: May 8, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 17, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: H. Nathan Resnick, RESNICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Akouri\\nInvestments. Geoffrey J. Klimas, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,\\nWashington, D.C., for United States Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service.\\nScott D. MacDonald, DIXON & MACDONALD, Southfield, Michigan, for AES-Apex. ON\\nBRIEF: H. Nathan Resnick, RESNICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Akouri\\nInvestments. Geoffrey J. Klimas, Teresa E. McLaughlin, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nOF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for United States Department of the Treasury and Internal\\nRevenue Service. Scott D. MacDonald, DIXON & MACDONALD, Southfield, Michigan, for\\nAES-Apex.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Dino Rotondo serves as a consultant for AES-Apex. This case\\nis a dispute about who gets the money that he makes consulting. The IRS says that it should get\\nthe money because Rotondo is behind on his taxes. Akouri Investments says it should get the\\nmoney instead because Akouri loaned Rotondo money that he has not paid back yet. And\\nfinally, AES-Apex says that it should get to keep some of the money pursuant to its contract with\\nRotondo. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS, and we affirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n As relevant here, Dino Rotondo was the sole owner of Apex Administrative Services\\n(“Apex”). Apex, in turn, wholly owned four limited liability companies: Apex HR Services,\\nLLC, Pinnacle HR Services, LLC, AS Holdings Group, LLC, and AS South, LLC (collectively,\\nthe “Directional Entities”). Together with these Directional Entities, Apex provided a variety of\\nservices, such as human resources, to different clients.\\n\\n Eventually Rotondo opted to sell the Directional Entities’ key asset—their customer lists,\\nessentially lists of who their clients were. He sold the customer lists in a deal with two firms,\\nAES-Apex Solutions, Inc. and AES-Apex Employer Services, Inc. (collectively, “AES”). As\\npart of that deal, AES agreed to pay Rotondo a share of its gross profits in the form of\\n“Consulting Fees.”\\n\\n Yet the bad news for Rotondo is that he will not keep the Consulting Fees because he\\nowes a lot of money and is behind on his payments. Two entities have claims to collect\\nRotondo’s Consulting Fees. First, a firm named Akouri Investments, LLC (“Akouri”) loaned\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nmoney to one of Rotondo’s other companies.1 In return for that loan, Akouri gained a security\\ninterest in Apex’s assets. When Rotondo failed to pay back his loan, Akouri obtained a\\njudgment against Rotondo and Apex for $1.4 million.\\n\\n Second, Rotondo owes the IRS. Over the years, Rotondo failed to pay his taxes, so the\\nIRS has assessed various tax penalties against him. As of 2015, Rotondo owed the IRS\\n$3.4 million. To try and get that money, the IRS filed several notices of tax liens against\\nRotondo, Apex, and the Directional Entities.\\n\\n Once Rotondo started earning his Consulting Fees, both the IRS and Akouri saw an\\nopportunity to get what they were owed. The IRS contacted AES directly, claiming it was\\nentitled to the Consulting Fees because of its tax liens. Then, several months later, Akouri\\nclaimed that it was entitled to the Consulting Fees. Facing conflicting claims to the Consulting\\nFees—and the possibility of having to pay twice—AES filed this interpleader action in state\\ncourt. Interpleader permits a party facing claims “that may expose [it] to double or multiple\\nliability” to join all claimants as defendants in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1). The IRS\\nremoved the case to federal district court, and the district court granted summary judgment in its\\nfavor. The parties now appeal several of the district court’s decisions. We review each in turn.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Before determining whether the IRS or Akouri gets the Consulting Fees, we must first\\nfigure out the size of the pot—i.e., how much money does AES owe Rotondo? That turns on\\ntwo sets of agreements between AES and Rotondo: the Consulting Agreement and the Asset\\nPurchase Agreement.2 AES claims that both of those agreements allow it to deduct the costs and\\nattorneys’ fees that it incurs in this case from what it owes Rotondo in Consulting Fees. The\\ndistrict court disagreed and found instead that AES must pay the “full value” of those Consulting\\n\\n\\n\\n 1Another individual, Richard Mark, also loaned money to Rotondo’s companies, but Mark’s interest is not\\na subject of this appeal.\\n 2AES and Rotondo signed two Consulting Agreements and two Asset Purchase Agreements that the parties\\ntreat as having substantially identical terms except for the AES signatory (either AES-Apex Solutions, Inc. or AES-\\nApex Employer Services, Inc.). We refer to these agreements in the singular.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nFees. This is a matter of contract interpretation that we review de novo. Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v.\\nOrient Overseas Container Line Ltd., 525 F.3d 409, 421 (6th Cir. 2008).\\n\\n A.\\n\\n AES first claims that the Consulting Agreement allows it to deduct litigation expenses.\\nIn AES’s Consulting Agreement with Rotondo, AES agreed to pay Rotondo a percentage of\\ngross profits as Consulting Fees. But the agreement permits it to deduct two types of costs from\\nthose gross profits: the taxes that AES owes on its own profits and “direct expenses attributable\\nto the employees leased under [a client’s] account.” R. 1, Pg. ID 52. AES claims that the costs\\nof this litigation (including related state court actions) are such “direct expenses.” In interpreting\\nthe Consulting Agreement, we apply the “plain and ordinary meaning” of these terms. Rory v.\\nCont’l Ins. Co., 703 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Mich. 2005); see also Stryker Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins.\\nCo. of Pittsburgh, 842 F.3d 422, 426 (6th Cir. 2016) (applying Michigan law).\\n\\n This “direct expenses” argument does not go very far. Even assuming the meaning of the\\nphrase “direct expenses” could include the costs of this litigation, we do not interpret contract\\nlanguage in isolation. We must read “direct expenses” in context. See Mich. Twp. Participating\\nPlan v. Pavolich, 591 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). The full clause in the contract\\nsays that AES is only entitled to deduct “direct expenses attributable to the employees leased\\nunder [a client’s] account.” R. 1, Pg. ID 52 (emphasis added). “Attributable” essentially means\\n“produced by.” Oxford English Dictionary (2012). And the “employees leased” are AES’s\\nclients’ employees. Thus, the “direct expenses” clause covers expenses “produced by” the\\nemployees of one of AES’s clients. But neither AES’s clients nor its clients’ employees did\\nanything to produce these litigation expenses. None of AES’s clients are parties to this litigation,\\nand there is no suggestion that any of the clients’ employees are bringing claims for Rotondo’s\\nConsulting Fees—only the IRS and Akouri are. Indeed, AES’s briefing does not even mention\\nits clients’ employees or point to any evidence that the costs of this litigation could be attributed\\nto its clients’ employees. The litigation expenses from this case are not “attributable” to any of\\nAES’s employees at all—they are “attributable” to AES’s lawyers, the IRS, and Akouri. So,\\nunder the plain meaning of the Consulting Agreement, AES cannot deduct its litigation expenses\\nfrom Rotondo’s Consulting Fees.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n AES counters by saying that the purpose of this provision was to enhance its profitability.\\nThus, anything that lowers its profitability should be deducted from the Consulting Fees. But\\nsuch an expansive definition does not fit the language to which the parties agreed. Again, that\\nlanguage expressly limits AES’s deductions to only two categories—not anything that could\\n“significantly diminish[]” profit. 17-2068 Appellant Br. 20. We “honor the intent of the parties”\\nby enforcing their agreement “as written”—not based on whatever vague purposes can be\\nsupplied after the fact. Superior Commc’ns v. City of Riverview, 881 F.3d 432, 438 (6th Cir.\\n2018) (quoting Rasheed v. Chrysler Corp., 517 N.W.2d 19, 29 n.28 (Mich. 1998)). Accordingly,\\nAES may not deduct costs or attorneys’ fees on account of this provision.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Next, AES contends that the Asset Purchase Agreement allows it to deduct litigation\\nexpenses. AES relies on two interwoven provisions in this Agreement: the Indemnification\\nProvision and the Offset Provision. Our analysis again rests on the plain and ordinary meaning\\nof these provisions. Rory, 703 N.W.2d at 28.\\n\\n Indemnification Provision. This provision states that Rotondo and the Directional\\nEntities must “indemnify” AES from the costs of litigation in a variety of circumstances,\\nincluding “any claim, litigation or other action of any nature arising out of any act . . . prior to the\\ndate” the deal closed. R. 1, Pg. ID 19. The provision further requires Rotondo to indemnify\\nAES for litigation expenses incurred in “enforc[ing] the indemnification obligations.” Id. The\\nIndemnification Provision may indeed encompass expenses incurred in this litigation since\\nRotondo owed taxes and did not pay his loan before the deal closed.\\n\\n While Rotondo may owe AES money, it does not follow that AES can automatically\\ndeduct what it thinks Rotondo owes from the Consulting Fees. The Indemnification Provision\\ndoes not create an automatic right for AES to be paid. Instead, this provision qualifies Rotondo’s\\nindemnification obligation by stating that Rotondo must pay after AES has made a “demand.”\\nId. Without a demand, there is no right to payment under the contract. But there is no evidence\\nthat AES made such a demand—and thus no evidence that the Indemnification Provision has\\neven been triggered.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n Offset Provision. AES alternatively suggests that the last line of the Indemnification\\nProvision, called the Offset Provision, proves that it has an automatic right to deduct costs and\\nattorneys’ fees. The Offset Provision states that AES “shall have a right to offset such losses,\\ndamages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees against any sums owed by\\n[AES] to [Rotondo].” Id. AES thus argues that deducting costs and attorneys’ fees from the\\nConsulting Fees is merely executing this “right to offset.”\\n\\n AES’s argument once again falls short because it failed to consider the full context of the\\nOffset Provision. The Offset Provision only provides that an “offset” can occur for “such losses,\\ndamages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.” Id. (emphasis added).\\nBut does this mean that AES can offset automatically—and whenever it pleases—any losses\\ncaused by Rotondo against the fees owed him? What are “such . . . costs”? We can figure that\\nout with the help of a canon of textual interpretation: a “demonstrative adjective generally refers\\nto the nearest reasonable antecedent,” i.e., when a word like “such” is used, it is normally\\nreferring to something mentioned previously. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law:\\nThe Interpretation of Legal Texts § 18 (2012); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 27–28 (2003);\\nsee also Sims’s Lessee v. Irvine, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 425, 444 n.* (1799) (“The rule is, that ‘such’\\napplies to the last antecedent, unless the sense of the passage requires a different construction.”).\\n\\n Applying this canon, we look to what came before the Offset Provision in the Asset\\nPurchase Agreement. Immediately preceding the Offset Provision is a reference to costs\\nincurred when “enforc[ing] the indemnification obligations.” R. 1, Pg. ID 19. Perhaps “such”\\nrefers only to these enforcement costs. If that is the case, then AES is out of luck; no\\nenforcement costs currently exist because AES has not sought to enforce Rotondo’s\\nindemnification obligations. But the text of the Offset Provision cuts against interpreting “such”\\nas referring exclusively to costs incurred in enforcing the Indemnification Provision. The Offset\\nProvision refers not merely to “such . . . costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees”—losses that could\\nbe incurred trying to enforce the Indemnification Provision—but also “such . . . damages,\\nliabilities, [and] deficiencies.” It is hard to imagine how AES could incur the latter sort of\\nlosses—e.g., “damages”—by trying to enforce the Indemnification Provision. And the mention\\nof “damages, liabilities, [and] deficiencies” in the Offset Provision likely refers back to\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n“damage[s], liabilit[ies] or deficienc[ies]” mentioned in the opening sentence of the\\nIndemnification Provision. In other words, the Offset Provision is best read as referring to both\\nthe costs of enforcing the Indemnification Provision and the total costs that could be\\nindemnified.3\\n\\n But the broad coverage of the Offset Provision does not help AES here. Although the\\nOffset Provision allows AES to offset any sums Rotondo is obligated to pay under the\\nIndemnification Provision, Rotondo is not obligated to pay anything under that provision until\\nAES has made a demand. Because there is no evidence in the record that AES has made such a\\ndemand, Rotondo is not currently obligated to pay under the Indemnification Provision. And\\nthere is thus no outstanding payment obligation to trigger the Offset Provision.\\n\\n As there is no basis in either the Consulting Agreement or the provisions of the Asset\\nPurchase Agreement for AES to deduct its costs and attorneys’ fees from this litigation, we\\naffirm the district court’s contract interpretation. AES owes Rotondo the full amount of the\\nConsulting Fees, without deductions.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Although AES owes the full value of the Consulting Fees, Rotondo will not get to keep\\nthat money. Instead, the Consulting Fees will go to one of the two entities to whom he owes\\nmoney: either Akouri or the IRS. Both have a claim to Rotondo’s money. We must decide\\nwhich one has seniority, i.e., who gets paid. The district court granted summary judgment in\\nfavor of the IRS. Akouri challenges this conclusion, and we review de novo. 1st Source Bank v.\\nWilson Bank & Tr., 735 F.3d 500, 502 (6th Cir. 2013).\\n\\n Federal law controls the priority of a federal tax lien vis-à-vis other property interests.\\nUnited States v. Dishman Indep. Oil, Inc., 46 F.3d 523, 526 (6th Cir. 1995). And “priority for\\npurposes of federal law is governed by the common-law principle that ‘first in time is the first in\\nright.’” United States v. McDermott, 507 U.S. 447, 449 (1993) (quoting United States v. New\\nBritain, 347 U.S. 81, 85 (1954)). So it all comes down to timing: did the IRS’s interest come\\n\\n 3It would also be strange if AES could offset losses from trying to enforce the indemnification provision\\nbut could not offset the losses Rotondo had to indemnify in the first place.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nfirst, or did Akouri’s? We measure the timing of a federal tax lien by when the IRS gave notice\\nof its lien. 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a), (f). And we measure the timing of state security interests, like\\nAkouri’s, by when they become “choate”—i.e., complete or perfected. See United States v.\\nEquitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 384 U.S. 323, 328 (1966); see also Black’s Law\\nDictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining choate). In general, these interests become “choate” as a\\nresult of a state judgment or state attachment filing (“when there is nothing more to be done”).\\nBlachy v. Butcher, 221 F.3d 896, 905–06 (6th Cir. 2000).\\n\\n The IRS was first. The United States filed its notices of tax liens against Rotondo’s\\nassets between October 2007 and September 2013. Akouri, in contrast, did not receive a state\\njudgment against Rotondo until December 2013. Thus, the IRS’s liens have priority.\\n\\n Akouri does not dispute this analysis. Instead, Akouri tries to get around the IRS’s clear\\npriority in two ways. Both are an attempt to recategorize the customer list assets as originally\\nbelonging to Apex rather than the Directional Entities. If Apex really sold those customer lists to\\nAES, then Akouri says it can take priority over the IRS because of its purportedly senior security\\ninterest in Apex.\\n\\n First, Akouri claims Apex actually owned the customer lists that Rotondo sold to AES.\\nIn order to survive summary judgment on this theory, Akouri needed to first raise a genuine\\ndispute of material fact as to the ownership of the customer lists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,\\n477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). But Akouri has pointed to nothing in the record that disputes the\\npieces of evidence that tend to prove that the Directional Entities, not Apex, owned and then sold\\nthe customer lists to AES. First, the Asset Purchase Agreement contains schedules detailing\\nwhich customers’ information was being sold. These schedules list the owner of each\\ncustomer’s information, and only the Directional Entities are listed as owners. Second, there are\\ntwo examples of contracts that the Directional Entities proposed to a client to offer services.\\nThese “exemplar contracts” offer some proof that the Directional Entities were the companies\\nworking with the customers. Third, Rotondo submitted an affidavit stating that the “customer\\nassets . . . were owned by entities which were at no time subject to a lien . . . of Akouri.” R. 53-\\n6, Pg. ID 1529. Since Akouri did not have a lien on the Directional Entities, this too implies it\\nwas the Directional Entities that sold the customer lists.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n While this may not be the strongest conceivable evidence, summary judgment is first and\\nforemost about dispute resolution; facts must be disputed by the party, like Akouri, that opposes\\nsummary judgment. See Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 378–79 (6th Cir. 2007)\\n(holding that the party opposing summary judgment is required to point to evidence in the record\\nthat creates an issue of fact). Rather than dispute any of the IRS’s evidence, Akouri has merely\\nsaid that there is not enough evidence to conclusively say the Directional Entities owned the\\ncustomer lists. We agree with the district court, however, that casting only “metaphysical doubt”\\nis insufficient to survive summary judgment. Matushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio\\nCorp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).4\\n\\n Akouri did, however, offer evidence that went to its second and altogether different\\ntheory of why Apex should be considered the owner of the customer lists. Even if the\\nDirectional Entities technically owned the customer lists, Akouri argues that they did not observe\\nvarious corporate formalities separating them from Apex. Thus, according to Akouri, the\\nDirectional Entities are just sham companies—“alter egos” of Apex. As “alter egos,” the\\nDirectional Entities would collapse back into one corporate form with Apex. And Akouri says it\\nhas a senior security interest in Apex.\\n\\n But this theory fails as well. As mentioned, a security interest can only defeat an IRS tax\\nlien if it is “choate.” Blachy, 221 F.3d at 905–06. An interest is only “choate” if it does not\\nrequire an additional judicial determination. Cf. United States v. Vermont, 377 U.S. 351, 355\\n(1964). It is one thing to casually describe the Directional Entities as “alter egos” of Apex, but it\\nis another to consider them “alter egos” as a matter of law. For the Directional Entities to be\\nlegally considered “alter egos,” a court would need to first make a judicial determination. See,\\ne.g., In re Two Springs Membership Club, 408 B.R. 453, 468–69 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009),\\nreversed on other grounds by United States v. Camp Coast to Coast, Inc., 424 B.R. 251 (N.D.\\nOhio 2010). Thus, Akouri’s interest under this theory remains inchoate because of the need for\\n\\n\\n\\n 4We also follow the district court in declining to decide if a Michigan state court decision has res judicata\\neffect on this question. It is unclear whether the state court decided the ownership question. New Hampshire v.\\nMaine, 532 U.S. 742, 748–49 (2001) (requiring “an issue of fact or law actually [be] litigated and resolved in a valid\\ncourt determination”).\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nan additional judicial determination. And an “inchoate” interest cannot take priority over the\\nIRS’s tax lien. Cf. McDermott, 507 U.S. at 449.\\n\\n Moreover, even if a court were to now decide that the Directional Entities are sham\\ncompanies, that determination would be too late. An interest becomes “choate” at a specific\\npoint in time—the federal law of priority does not allow for interests to “relat[e] back” to an\\nearlier time. Blachy, 221 F.3d at 905. Akouri’s interest would be choate as of 2019, not some\\nearlier date. But the IRS’s tax liens indisputably date to well before 2019, so Akouri’s interest\\nwould still not be “first in time.” Id.\\n\\n Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment in favor of the IRS.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n Akouri appeals two additional decisions by the district court. First, the district court\\ndenied Akouri’s motion for supplemental briefing, which included a request that the court\\nconsider new evidence on the ownership of the customer lists. Second, the district court declined\\nto exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Akouri’s additional state law fraudulent transfer claim.\\nAkouri concedes that we can only reverse these decisions if they were an abuse of discretion.\\nJones v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare Sys., 84 F. App’x 597, 599 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing In\\nre Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498, 516 (6th Cir. 1996)) (supplemental briefing); Harper v.\\nAutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 200 (6th Cir. 2004) (supplemental jurisdiction).\\n\\n Supplemental Briefing. After the magistrate judge finished his report and\\nrecommendation—and nearly three months after briefing concerning that report and\\nrecommendation had been completed—Akouri sought permission to file a supplemental brief\\nwith new evidence attached. This evidence came from new depositions that Akouri took in a\\nstate court action involving Rotondo and AES. Akouri says that the district court should have\\nconsidered this evidence. Docket control, however, is something that rests in the “sound\\ndiscretion of the district court.” In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d at 516 (alteration omitted).\\nAnd the district court pointed out that Akouri had the opportunity to request these depositions\\nduring federal discovery but did not. Had it sought these depositions, it then could have used\\nthem to develop additional arguments and included them in the various summary judgment\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nmotions. Further, to the extent that this evidence would lead to new legal arguments, the district\\ncourt explained Akouri had forfeited those arguments. See Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895,\\n902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000). Such reasoning was not an abuse of discretion.\\n\\n Akouri argues otherwise. Akouri says the district court would have denied an earlier\\nrequest for discovery as duplicative of its state court discovery. Therefore, it would have been\\nfruitless to ask. But we cannot know what the district court would have done if given the\\nopportunity to review Akouri’s request for evidence earlier. All we know is there was nothing\\nbarring Akouri from making a good faith request for discovery during the time allotted by the\\nparties, the magistrate judge, and the district court. Akouri made a strategic decision not to make\\nthat request. And when it finally got the depositions and sought to introduce them, the district\\ncourt reasonably explained why it was too late. Cf. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254\\n(1936) (stating that a court has inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its\\ndocket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”).\\n\\n In one last argument, Akouri points to an unpublished decision, Muhammad v. Close.\\nNo. 08–1944, 2009 WL 8755520, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 20, 2009) (order). But Muhammad did\\nnothing more than recognize the age-old truth that district courts must actually use the discretion\\nthat they have. Id. (remanding because district court did not appear to use its discretion in\\ndeciding whether to accept late evidence); cf. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here,\\nthe district court did so in its reasoned discussion of Akouri’s request. It simply exercised that\\ndiscretion in a way contrary to what Akouri wanted. Indeed, a district court never abuses its\\ndiscretion when it holds that an issue not actually presented to a magistrate judge is forfeited.\\nSee United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Marshall v. Chater, 75\\nF.3d 1421, 1426–27 (10th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases holding that issues raised for the first time\\nin objections to a magistrate judge’s report are deemed forfeited)). And Muhammad did not\\ncreate a different rule (nor could it). Accordingly, Muhammad neither calls into question the\\ndiscretion that the district court used here nor alters the district court’s forfeiture analysis.\\n\\n Supplemental Jurisdiction. As part of its cross-complaint below, Akouri alleged that the\\nsale of the customer lists from the Directional Entities to AES was a fraudulent conveyance\\nunder Michigan law. The district court dismissed this claim after it granted summary judgment\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nin favor of the IRS. Akouri’s dispute with the IRS was the basis of the court’s jurisdiction;\\nAkouri’s Michigan-law claim merely tagged along based on supplemental jurisdiction. This\\ndismissal was not an abuse of discretion. “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are\\neliminated before trial,” district courts should decline to “exercise jurisdiction over the remaining\\nstate-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7 (1988).\\n\\n Akouri claims this is not a usual case. It points out that three years had passed since it\\nfiled its state law claim. Therefore, Akouri argues, it was imprudent for the district court to\\ndismiss the state law claim since the litigation was no longer in its “early stages.” Id. at 350.\\nBut the progression of litigation is not measured so much in years as in the various and familiar\\nstages laid out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—there is the filing of the complaint,\\nnotice, answers to the complaint or motions to dismiss, discovery, motions for summary\\njudgment, trial, and final judgment. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 4, 12, 26, 40, 54, 56. So the\\nproper metric is how far Akouri’s state law claim was along these stages. The answer? Not far.\\nAkouri points to no discovery undertaken for this claim, and the docket discloses no motions for\\nsummary judgment on this claim either. Indeed, Akouri concedes that it instead sought most of\\nits discovery on these issues in the parallel state case. Thus, in terms of the stages of litigation\\nand the resources to be expended on it, Akouri’s state law claim was in its very early stages\\nindeed. See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559–60 & n.6 (2007) (discussing the\\nburdens and resource intensive nature of the discovery stage of litigation). The district court did\\nnot abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Akouri’s state law\\nclaim.\\n\\n * * *\\n\\n The district court properly interpreted the agreements between AES and Rotondo,\\nproperly granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS’s claim for the Consulting Fees, and did\\nnot abuse its discretion in denying Akouri’s requests for supplemental briefing and supplemental\\njurisdiction.\\n\\n We affirm.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4398389/\", \"author_raw\": \"THAPAR, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"SUHRHEINRICH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"THAPAR"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"LARSEN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"SUHRHEINRICH\": \", Circuit\", \"THAPAR\": \", Circuit\", \"LARSEN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621136/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: AES-Apex Employer Servs. v. Dino Rotondo\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0094p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n AES-APEX EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC.; AES-APEX ┐\n EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS, INC., │\n Plaintiffs-Appellees (17-2068), │\n Plaintiffs-Appellants (17-2211), │\n │\n > Nos. 17-2068/2211\n v. │\n │\n │\n DINO ROTONDO; RICHARD MARK; UNITED STATES │\n DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE │\n SERVICE, │\n Defendants-Appellees (17-2068 & 17-2211), │\n │\n │\n AKOURI INVESTMENTS, LLC,\n │\n Intervenor-Appellant (17-2068), │\n Intervenor-Appellee (17-2211). │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\n No. 2:13-cv-14519—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge.\n\n Argued: May 8, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 17, 2019\n\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: H. Nathan Resnick, RESNICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Akouri\nInvestments. Geoffrey J. Klimas, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,\nWashington, D.C., for United States Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service.\nScott D. MacDonald, DIXON & MACDONALD, Southfield, Michigan, for AES-Apex. ON\nBRIEF: H. Nathan Resnick, RESNICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Akouri\nInvestments. Geoffrey J. Klimas, Teresa E. McLaughlin, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 2\n\n\nOF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for United States Department of the Treasury and Internal\nRevenue Service. Scott D. MacDonald, DIXON & MACDONALD, Southfield, Michigan, for\nAES-Apex.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Dino Rotondo serves as a consultant for AES-Apex. This case\nis a dispute about who gets the money that he makes consulting. The IRS says that it should get\nthe money because Rotondo is behind on his taxes. Akouri Investments says it should get the\nmoney instead because Akouri loaned Rotondo money that he has not paid back yet. And\nfinally, AES-Apex says that it should get to keep some of the money pursuant to its contract with\nRotondo. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS, and we affirm.\n\n I.\n\n As relevant here, Dino Rotondo was the sole owner of Apex Administrative Services\n(“Apex”). Apex, in turn, wholly owned four limited liability companies: Apex HR Services,\nLLC, Pinnacle HR Services, LLC, AS Holdings Group, LLC, and AS South, LLC (collectively,\nthe “Directional Entities”). Together with these Directional Entities, Apex provided a variety of\nservices, such as human resources, to different clients.\n\n Eventually Rotondo opted to sell the Directional Entities’ key asset—their customer lists,\nessentially lists of who their clients were. He sold the customer lists in a deal with two firms,\nAES-Apex Solutions, Inc. and AES-Apex Employer Services, Inc. (collectively, “AES”). As\npart of that deal, AES agreed to pay Rotondo a share of its gross profits in the form of\n“Consulting Fees.”\n\n Yet the bad news for Rotondo is that he will not keep the Consulting Fees because he\nowes a lot of money and is behind on his payments. Two entities have claims to collect\nRotondo’s Consulting Fees. First, a firm named Akouri Investments, LLC (“Akouri”) loaned\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 3\n\n\nmoney to one of Rotondo’s other companies.1 In return for that loan, Akouri gained a security\ninterest in Apex’s assets. When Rotondo failed to pay back his loan, Akouri obtained a\njudgment against Rotondo and Apex for $1.4 million.\n\n Second, Rotondo owes the IRS. Over the years, Rotondo failed to pay his taxes, so the\nIRS has assessed various tax penalties against him. As of 2015, Rotondo owed the IRS\n$3.4 million. To try and get that money, the IRS filed several notices of tax liens against\nRotondo, Apex, and the Directional Entities.\n\n Once Rotondo started earning his Consulting Fees, both the IRS and Akouri saw an\nopportunity to get what they were owed. The IRS contacted AES directly, claiming it was\nentitled to the Consulting Fees because of its tax liens. Then, several months later, Akouri\nclaimed that it was entitled to the Consulting Fees. Facing conflicting claims to the Consulting\nFees—and the possibility of having to pay twice—AES filed this interpleader action in state\ncourt. Interpleader permits a party facing claims “that may expose [it] to double or multiple\nliability” to join all claimants as defendants in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1). The IRS\nremoved the case to federal district court, and the district court granted summary judgment in its\nfavor. The parties now appeal several of the district court’s decisions. We review each in turn.\n\n II.\n\n Before determining whether the IRS or Akouri gets the Consulting Fees, we must first\nfigure out the size of the pot—i.e., how much money does AES owe Rotondo? That turns on\ntwo sets of agreements between AES and Rotondo: the Consulting Agreement and the Asset\nPurchase Agreement.2 AES claims that both of those agreements allow it to deduct the costs and\nattorneys’ fees that it incurs in this case from what it owes Rotondo in Consulting Fees. The\ndistrict court disagreed and found instead that AES must pay the “full value” of those Consulting\n\n\n\n 1Another individual, Richard Mark, also loaned money to Rotondo’s companies, but Mark’s interest is not\na subject of this appeal.\n 2AES and Rotondo signed two Consulting Agreements and two Asset Purchase Agreements that the parties\ntreat as having substantially identical terms except for the AES signatory (either AES-Apex Solutions, Inc. or AES-\nApex Employer Services, Inc.). We refer to these agreements in the singular.\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 4\n\n\nFees. This is a matter of contract interpretation that we review de novo. Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v.\nOrient Overseas Container Line Ltd., 525 F.3d 409, 421 (6th Cir. 2008).\n\n A.\n\n AES first claims that the Consulting Agreement allows it to deduct litigation expenses.\nIn AES’s Consulting Agreement with Rotondo, AES agreed to pay Rotondo a percentage of\ngross profits as Consulting Fees. But the agreement permits it to deduct two types of costs from\nthose gross profits: the taxes that AES owes on its own profits and “direct expenses attributable\nto the employees leased under [a client’s] account.” R. 1, Pg. ID 52. AES claims that the costs\nof this litigation (including related state court actions) are such “direct expenses.” In interpreting\nthe Consulting Agreement, we apply the “plain and ordinary meaning” of these terms. Rory v.\nCont’l Ins. Co., 703 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Mich. 2005); see also Stryker Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins.\nCo. of Pittsburgh, 842 F.3d 422, 426 (6th Cir. 2016) (applying Michigan law).\n\n This “direct expenses” argument does not go very far. Even assuming the meaning of the\nphrase “direct expenses” could include the costs of this litigation, we do not interpret contract\nlanguage in isolation. We must read “direct expenses” in context. See Mich. Twp. Participating\nPlan v. Pavolich, 591 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). The full clause in the contract\nsays that AES is only entitled to deduct “direct expenses attributable to the employees leased\nunder [a client’s] account.” R. 1, Pg. ID 52 (emphasis added). “Attributable” essentially means\n“produced by.” Oxford English Dictionary (2012). And the “employees leased” are AES’s\nclients’ employees. Thus, the “direct expenses” clause covers expenses “produced by” the\nemployees of one of AES’s clients. But neither AES’s clients nor its clients’ employees did\nanything to produce these litigation expenses. None of AES’s clients are parties to this litigation,\nand there is no suggestion that any of the clients’ employees are bringing claims for Rotondo’s\nConsulting Fees—only the IRS and Akouri are. Indeed, AES’s briefing does not even mention\nits clients’ employees or point to any evidence that the costs of this litigation could be attributed\nto its clients’ employees. The litigation expenses from this case are not “attributable” to any of\nAES’s employees at all—they are “attributable” to AES’s lawyers, the IRS, and Akouri. So,\nunder the plain meaning of the Consulting Agreement, AES cannot deduct its litigation expenses\nfrom Rotondo’s Consulting Fees.\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 5\n\n\n AES counters by saying that the purpose of this provision was to enhance its profitability.\nThus, anything that lowers its profitability should be deducted from the Consulting Fees. But\nsuch an expansive definition does not fit the language to which the parties agreed. Again, that\nlanguage expressly limits AES’s deductions to only two categories—not anything that could\n“significantly diminish[]” profit. 17-2068 Appellant Br. 20. We “honor the intent of the parties”\nby enforcing their agreement “as written”—not based on whatever vague purposes can be\nsupplied after the fact. Superior Commc’ns v. City of Riverview, 881 F.3d 432, 438 (6th Cir.\n2018) (quoting Rasheed v. Chrysler Corp., 517 N.W.2d 19, 29 n.28 (Mich. 1998)). Accordingly,\nAES may not deduct costs or attorneys’ fees on account of this provision.\n\n B.\n\n Next, AES contends that the Asset Purchase Agreement allows it to deduct litigation\nexpenses. AES relies on two interwoven provisions in this Agreement: the Indemnification\nProvision and the Offset Provision. Our analysis again rests on the plain and ordinary meaning\nof these provisions. Rory, 703 N.W.2d at 28.\n\n Indemnification Provision. This provision states that Rotondo and the Directional\nEntities must “indemnify” AES from the costs of litigation in a variety of circumstances,\nincluding “any claim, litigation or other action of any nature arising out of any act . . . prior to the\ndate” the deal closed. R. 1, Pg. ID 19. The provision further requires Rotondo to indemnify\nAES for litigation expenses incurred in “enforc[ing] the indemnification obligations.” Id. The\nIndemnification Provision may indeed encompass expenses incurred in this litigation since\nRotondo owed taxes and did not pay his loan before the deal closed.\n\n While Rotondo may owe AES money, it does not follow that AES can automatically\ndeduct what it thinks Rotondo owes from the Consulting Fees. The Indemnification Provision\ndoes not create an automatic right for AES to be paid. Instead, this provision qualifies Rotondo’s\nindemnification obligation by stating that Rotondo must pay after AES has made a “demand.”\nId. Without a demand, there is no right to payment under the contract. But there is no evidence\nthat AES made such a demand—and thus no evidence that the Indemnification Provision has\neven been triggered.\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 6\n\n\n Offset Provision. AES alternatively suggests that the last line of the Indemnification\nProvision, called the Offset Provision, proves that it has an automatic right to deduct costs and\nattorneys’ fees. The Offset Provision states that AES “shall have a right to offset such losses,\ndamages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees against any sums owed by\n[AES] to [Rotondo].” Id. AES thus argues that deducting costs and attorneys’ fees from the\nConsulting Fees is merely executing this “right to offset.”\n\n AES’s argument once again falls short because it failed to consider the full context of the\nOffset Provision. The Offset Provision only provides that an “offset” can occur for “such losses,\ndamages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.” Id. (emphasis added).\nBut does this mean that AES can offset automatically—and whenever it pleases—any losses\ncaused by Rotondo against the fees owed him? What are “such . . . costs”? We can figure that\nout with the help of a canon of textual interpretation: a “demonstrative adjective generally refers\nto the nearest reasonable antecedent,” i.e., when a word like “such” is used, it is normally\nreferring to something mentioned previously. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law:\nThe Interpretation of Legal Texts § 18 (2012); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 27–28 (2003);\nsee also Sims’s Lessee v. Irvine, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 425, 444 n.* (1799) (“The rule is, that ‘such’\napplies to the last antecedent, unless the sense of the passage requires a different construction.”).\n\n Applying this canon, we look to what came before the Offset Provision in the Asset\nPurchase Agreement. Immediately preceding the Offset Provision is a reference to costs\nincurred when “enforc[ing] the indemnification obligations.” R. 1, Pg. ID 19. Perhaps “such”\nrefers only to these enforcement costs. If that is the case, then AES is out of luck; no\nenforcement costs currently exist because AES has not sought to enforce Rotondo’s\nindemnification obligations. But the text of the Offset Provision cuts against interpreting “such”\nas referring exclusively to costs incurred in enforcing the Indemnification Provision. The Offset\nProvision refers not merely to “such . . . costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees”—losses that could\nbe incurred trying to enforce the Indemnification Provision—but also “such . . . damages,\nliabilities, [and] deficiencies.” It is hard to imagine how AES could incur the latter sort of\nlosses—e.g., “damages”—by trying to enforce the Indemnification Provision. And the mention\nof “damages, liabilities, [and] deficiencies” in the Offset Provision likely refers back to\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 7\n\n\n“damage[s], liabilit[ies] or deficienc[ies]” mentioned in the opening sentence of the\nIndemnification Provision. In other words, the Offset Provision is best read as referring to both\nthe costs of enforcing the Indemnification Provision and the total costs that could be\nindemnified.3\n\n But the broad coverage of the Offset Provision does not help AES here. Although the\nOffset Provision allows AES to offset any sums Rotondo is obligated to pay under the\nIndemnification Provision, Rotondo is not obligated to pay anything under that provision until\nAES has made a demand. Because there is no evidence in the record that AES has made such a\ndemand, Rotondo is not currently obligated to pay under the Indemnification Provision. And\nthere is thus no outstanding payment obligation to trigger the Offset Provision.\n\n As there is no basis in either the Consulting Agreement or the provisions of the Asset\nPurchase Agreement for AES to deduct its costs and attorneys’ fees from this litigation, we\naffirm the district court’s contract interpretation. AES owes Rotondo the full amount of the\nConsulting Fees, without deductions.\n\n III.\n\n Although AES owes the full value of the Consulting Fees, Rotondo will not get to keep\nthat money. Instead, the Consulting Fees will go to one of the two entities to whom he owes\nmoney: either Akouri or the IRS. Both have a claim to Rotondo’s money. We must decide\nwhich one has seniority, i.e., who gets paid. The district court granted summary judgment in\nfavor of the IRS. Akouri challenges this conclusion, and we review de novo. 1st Source Bank v.\nWilson Bank & Tr., 735 F.3d 500, 502 (6th Cir. 2013).\n\n Federal law controls the priority of a federal tax lien vis-à-vis other property interests.\nUnited States v. Dishman Indep. Oil, Inc., 46 F.3d 523, 526 (6th Cir. 1995). And “priority for\npurposes of federal law is governed by the common-law principle that ‘first in time is the first in\nright.’” United States v. McDermott, 507 U.S. 447, 449 (1993) (quoting United States v. New\nBritain, 347 U.S. 81, 85 (1954)). So it all comes down to timing: did the IRS’s interest come\n\n 3It would also be strange if AES could offset losses from trying to enforce the indemnification provision\nbut could not offset the losses Rotondo had to indemnify in the first place.\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 8\n\n\nfirst, or did Akouri’s? We measure the timing of a federal tax lien by when the IRS gave notice\nof its lien. 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a), (f). And we measure the timing of state security interests, like\nAkouri’s, by when they become “choate”—i.e., complete or perfected. See United States v.\nEquitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 384 U.S. 323, 328 (1966); see also Black’s Law\nDictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining choate). In general, these interests become “choate” as a\nresult of a state judgment or state attachment filing (“when there is nothing more to be done”).\nBlachy v. Butcher, 221 F.3d 896, 905–06 (6th Cir. 2000).\n\n The IRS was first. The United States filed its notices of tax liens against Rotondo’s\nassets between October 2007 and September 2013. Akouri, in contrast, did not receive a state\njudgment against Rotondo until December 2013. Thus, the IRS’s liens have priority.\n\n Akouri does not dispute this analysis. Instead, Akouri tries to get around the IRS’s clear\npriority in two ways. Both are an attempt to recategorize the customer list assets as originally\nbelonging to Apex rather than the Directional Entities. If Apex really sold those customer lists to\nAES, then Akouri says it can take priority over the IRS because of its purportedly senior security\ninterest in Apex.\n\n First, Akouri claims Apex actually owned the customer lists that Rotondo sold to AES.\nIn order to survive summary judgment on this theory, Akouri needed to first raise a genuine\ndispute of material fact as to the ownership of the customer lists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,\n477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). But Akouri has pointed to nothing in the record that disputes the\npieces of evidence that tend to prove that the Directional Entities, not Apex, owned and then sold\nthe customer lists to AES. First, the Asset Purchase Agreement contains schedules detailing\nwhich customers’ information was being sold. These schedules list the owner of each\ncustomer’s information, and only the Directional Entities are listed as owners. Second, there are\ntwo examples of contracts that the Directional Entities proposed to a client to offer services.\nThese “exemplar contracts” offer some proof that the Directional Entities were the companies\nworking with the customers. Third, Rotondo submitted an affidavit stating that the “customer\nassets . . . were owned by entities which were at no time subject to a lien . . . of Akouri.” R. 53-\n6, Pg. ID 1529. Since Akouri did not have a lien on the Directional Entities, this too implies it\nwas the Directional Entities that sold the customer lists.\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 9\n\n\n While this may not be the strongest conceivable evidence, summary judgment is first and\nforemost about dispute resolution; facts must be disputed by the party, like Akouri, that opposes\nsummary judgment. See Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 378–79 (6th Cir. 2007)\n(holding that the party opposing summary judgment is required to point to evidence in the record\nthat creates an issue of fact). Rather than dispute any of the IRS’s evidence, Akouri has merely\nsaid that there is not enough evidence to conclusively say the Directional Entities owned the\ncustomer lists. We agree with the district court, however, that casting only “metaphysical doubt”\nis insufficient to survive summary judgment. Matushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio\nCorp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).4\n\n Akouri did, however, offer evidence that went to its second and altogether different\ntheory of why Apex should be considered the owner of the customer lists. Even if the\nDirectional Entities technically owned the customer lists, Akouri argues that they did not observe\nvarious corporate formalities separating them from Apex. Thus, according to Akouri, the\nDirectional Entities are just sham companies—“alter egos” of Apex. As “alter egos,” the\nDirectional Entities would collapse back into one corporate form with Apex. And Akouri says it\nhas a senior security interest in Apex.\n\n But this theory fails as well. As mentioned, a security interest can only defeat an IRS tax\nlien if it is “choate.” Blachy, 221 F.3d at 905–06. An interest is only “choate” if it does not\nrequire an additional judicial determination. Cf. United States v. Vermont, 377 U.S. 351, 355\n(1964). It is one thing to casually describe the Directional Entities as “alter egos” of Apex, but it\nis another to consider them “alter egos” as a matter of law. For the Directional Entities to be\nlegally considered “alter egos,” a court would need to first make a judicial determination. See,\ne.g., In re Two Springs Membership Club, 408 B.R. 453, 468–69 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009),\nreversed on other grounds by United States v. Camp Coast to Coast, Inc., 424 B.R. 251 (N.D.\nOhio 2010). Thus, Akouri’s interest under this theory remains inchoate because of the need for\n\n\n\n 4We also follow the district court in declining to decide if a Michigan state court decision has res judicata\neffect on this question. It is unclear whether the state court decided the ownership question. New Hampshire v.\nMaine, 532 U.S. 742, 748–49 (2001) (requiring “an issue of fact or law actually [be] litigated and resolved in a valid\ncourt determination”).\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 10\n\n\nan additional judicial determination. And an “inchoate” interest cannot take priority over the\nIRS’s tax lien. Cf. McDermott, 507 U.S. at 449.\n\n Moreover, even if a court were to now decide that the Directional Entities are sham\ncompanies, that determination would be too late. An interest becomes “choate” at a specific\npoint in time—the federal law of priority does not allow for interests to “relat[e] back” to an\nearlier time. Blachy, 221 F.3d at 905. Akouri’s interest would be choate as of 2019, not some\nearlier date. But the IRS’s tax liens indisputably date to well before 2019, so Akouri’s interest\nwould still not be “first in time.” Id.\n\n Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment in favor of the IRS.\n\n IV.\n\n Akouri appeals two additional decisions by the district court. First, the district court\ndenied Akouri’s motion for supplemental briefing, which included a request that the court\nconsider new evidence on the ownership of the customer lists. Second, the district court declined\nto exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Akouri’s additional state law fraudulent transfer claim.\nAkouri concedes that we can only reverse these decisions if they were an abuse of discretion.\nJones v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare Sys., 84 F. App’x 597, 599 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing In\nre Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498, 516 (6th Cir. 1996)) (supplemental briefing); Harper v.\nAutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 200 (6th Cir. 2004) (supplemental jurisdiction).\n\n Supplemental Briefing. After the magistrate judge finished his report and\nrecommendation—and nearly three months after briefing concerning that report and\nrecommendation had been completed—Akouri sought permission to file a supplemental brief\nwith new evidence attached. This evidence came from new depositions that Akouri took in a\nstate court action involving Rotondo and AES. Akouri says that the district court should have\nconsidered this evidence. Docket control, however, is something that rests in the “sound\ndiscretion of the district court.” In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d at 516 (alteration omitted).\nAnd the district court pointed out that Akouri had the opportunity to request these depositions\nduring federal discovery but did not. Had it sought these depositions, it then could have used\nthem to develop additional arguments and included them in the various summary judgment\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 11\n\n\nmotions. Further, to the extent that this evidence would lead to new legal arguments, the district\ncourt explained Akouri had forfeited those arguments. See Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895,\n902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000). Such reasoning was not an abuse of discretion.\n\n Akouri argues otherwise. Akouri says the district court would have denied an earlier\nrequest for discovery as duplicative of its state court discovery. Therefore, it would have been\nfruitless to ask. But we cannot know what the district court would have done if given the\nopportunity to review Akouri’s request for evidence earlier. All we know is there was nothing\nbarring Akouri from making a good faith request for discovery during the time allotted by the\nparties, the magistrate judge, and the district court. Akouri made a strategic decision not to make\nthat request. And when it finally got the depositions and sought to introduce them, the district\ncourt reasonably explained why it was too late. Cf. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254\n(1936) (stating that a court has inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its\ndocket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”).\n\n In one last argument, Akouri points to an unpublished decision, Muhammad v. Close.\nNo. 08–1944, 2009 WL 8755520, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 20, 2009) (order). But Muhammad did\nnothing more than recognize the age-old truth that district courts must actually use the discretion\nthat they have. Id. (remanding because district court did not appear to use its discretion in\ndeciding whether to accept late evidence); cf. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here,\nthe district court did so in its reasoned discussion of Akouri’s request. It simply exercised that\ndiscretion in a way contrary to what Akouri wanted. Indeed, a district court never abuses its\ndiscretion when it holds that an issue not actually presented to a magistrate judge is forfeited.\nSee United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Marshall v. Chater, 75\nF.3d 1421, 1426–27 (10th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases holding that issues raised for the first time\nin objections to a magistrate judge’s report are deemed forfeited)). And Muhammad did not\ncreate a different rule (nor could it). Accordingly, Muhammad neither calls into question the\ndiscretion that the district court used here nor alters the district court’s forfeiture analysis.\n\n Supplemental Jurisdiction. As part of its cross-complaint below, Akouri alleged that the\nsale of the customer lists from the Directional Entities to AES was a fraudulent conveyance\nunder Michigan law. The district court dismissed this claim after it granted summary judgment\n\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 12\n\n\nin favor of the IRS. Akouri’s dispute with the IRS was the basis of the court’s jurisdiction;\nAkouri’s Michigan-law claim merely tagged along based on supplemental jurisdiction. This\ndismissal was not an abuse of discretion. “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are\neliminated before trial,” district courts should decline to “exercise jurisdiction over the remaining\nstate-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7 (1988).\n\n Akouri claims this is not a usual case. It points out that three years had passed since it\nfiled its state law claim. Therefore, Akouri argues, it was imprudent for the district court to\ndismiss the state law claim since the litigation was no longer in its “early stages.” Id. at 350.\nBut the progression of litigation is not measured so much in years as in the various and familiar\nstages laid out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—there is the filing of the complaint,\nnotice, answers to the complaint or motions to dismiss, discovery, motions for summary\njudgment, trial, and final judgment. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 4, 12, 26, 40, 54, 56. So the\nproper metric is how far Akouri’s state law claim was along these stages. The answer? Not far.\nAkouri points to no discovery undertaken for this claim, and the docket discloses no motions for\nsummary judgment on this claim either. Indeed, Akouri concedes that it instead sought most of\nits discovery on these issues in the parallel state case. Thus, in terms of the stages of litigation\nand the resources to be expended on it, Akouri’s state law claim was in its very early stages\nindeed. See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559–60 & n.6 (2007) (discussing the\nburdens and resource intensive nature of the discovery stage of litigation). The district court did\nnot abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Akouri’s state law\nclaim.\n\n * * *\n\n The district court properly interpreted the agreements between AES and Rotondo,\nproperly granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS’s claim for the Consulting Fees, and did\nnot abuse its discretion in denying Akouri’s requests for supplemental briefing and supplemental\njurisdiction.\n\n We affirm.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: AES-Apex Employer Servs. v. Dino Rotondo\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0094p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n AES-APEX EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC.; AES-APEX ┐\\n EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS, INC., │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees (17-2068), │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants (17-2211), │\\n │\\n > Nos. 17-2068/2211\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n DINO ROTONDO; RICHARD MARK; UNITED STATES │\\n DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE │\\n SERVICE, │\\n Defendants-Appellees (17-2068 & 17-2211), │\\n │\\n │\\n AKOURI INVESTMENTS, LLC,\\n │\\n Intervenor-Appellant (17-2068), │\\n Intervenor-Appellee (17-2211). │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:13-cv-14519—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: May 8, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 17, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: H. Nathan Resnick, RESNICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Akouri\\nInvestments. Geoffrey J. Klimas, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,\\nWashington, D.C., for United States Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service.\\nScott D. MacDonald, DIXON & MACDONALD, Southfield, Michigan, for AES-Apex. ON\\nBRIEF: H. Nathan Resnick, RESNICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Akouri\\nInvestments. Geoffrey J. Klimas, Teresa E. McLaughlin, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nOF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for United States Department of the Treasury and Internal\\nRevenue Service. Scott D. MacDonald, DIXON & MACDONALD, Southfield, Michigan, for\\nAES-Apex.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Dino Rotondo serves as a consultant for AES-Apex. This case\\nis a dispute about who gets the money that he makes consulting. The IRS says that it should get\\nthe money because Rotondo is behind on his taxes. Akouri Investments says it should get the\\nmoney instead because Akouri loaned Rotondo money that he has not paid back yet. And\\nfinally, AES-Apex says that it should get to keep some of the money pursuant to its contract with\\nRotondo. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS, and we affirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n As relevant here, Dino Rotondo was the sole owner of Apex Administrative Services\\n(“Apex”). Apex, in turn, wholly owned four limited liability companies: Apex HR Services,\\nLLC, Pinnacle HR Services, LLC, AS Holdings Group, LLC, and AS South, LLC (collectively,\\nthe “Directional Entities”). Together with these Directional Entities, Apex provided a variety of\\nservices, such as human resources, to different clients.\\n\\n Eventually Rotondo opted to sell the Directional Entities’ key asset—their customer lists,\\nessentially lists of who their clients were. He sold the customer lists in a deal with two firms,\\nAES-Apex Solutions, Inc. and AES-Apex Employer Services, Inc. (collectively, “AES”). As\\npart of that deal, AES agreed to pay Rotondo a share of its gross profits in the form of\\n“Consulting Fees.”\\n\\n Yet the bad news for Rotondo is that he will not keep the Consulting Fees because he\\nowes a lot of money and is behind on his payments. Two entities have claims to collect\\nRotondo’s Consulting Fees. First, a firm named Akouri Investments, LLC (“Akouri”) loaned\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nmoney to one of Rotondo’s other companies.1 In return for that loan, Akouri gained a security\\ninterest in Apex’s assets. When Rotondo failed to pay back his loan, Akouri obtained a\\njudgment against Rotondo and Apex for $1.4 million.\\n\\n Second, Rotondo owes the IRS. Over the years, Rotondo failed to pay his taxes, so the\\nIRS has assessed various tax penalties against him. As of 2015, Rotondo owed the IRS\\n$3.4 million. To try and get that money, the IRS filed several notices of tax liens against\\nRotondo, Apex, and the Directional Entities.\\n\\n Once Rotondo started earning his Consulting Fees, both the IRS and Akouri saw an\\nopportunity to get what they were owed. The IRS contacted AES directly, claiming it was\\nentitled to the Consulting Fees because of its tax liens. Then, several months later, Akouri\\nclaimed that it was entitled to the Consulting Fees. Facing conflicting claims to the Consulting\\nFees—and the possibility of having to pay twice—AES filed this interpleader action in state\\ncourt. Interpleader permits a party facing claims “that may expose [it] to double or multiple\\nliability” to join all claimants as defendants in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1). The IRS\\nremoved the case to federal district court, and the district court granted summary judgment in its\\nfavor. The parties now appeal several of the district court’s decisions. We review each in turn.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Before determining whether the IRS or Akouri gets the Consulting Fees, we must first\\nfigure out the size of the pot—i.e., how much money does AES owe Rotondo? That turns on\\ntwo sets of agreements between AES and Rotondo: the Consulting Agreement and the Asset\\nPurchase Agreement.2 AES claims that both of those agreements allow it to deduct the costs and\\nattorneys’ fees that it incurs in this case from what it owes Rotondo in Consulting Fees. The\\ndistrict court disagreed and found instead that AES must pay the “full value” of those Consulting\\n\\n\\n\\n 1Another individual, Richard Mark, also loaned money to Rotondo’s companies, but Mark’s interest is not\\na subject of this appeal.\\n 2AES and Rotondo signed two Consulting Agreements and two Asset Purchase Agreements that the parties\\ntreat as having substantially identical terms except for the AES signatory (either AES-Apex Solutions, Inc. or AES-\\nApex Employer Services, Inc.). We refer to these agreements in the singular.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nFees. This is a matter of contract interpretation that we review de novo. Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v.\\nOrient Overseas Container Line Ltd., 525 F.3d 409, 421 (6th Cir. 2008).\\n\\n A.\\n\\n AES first claims that the Consulting Agreement allows it to deduct litigation expenses.\\nIn AES’s Consulting Agreement with Rotondo, AES agreed to pay Rotondo a percentage of\\ngross profits as Consulting Fees. But the agreement permits it to deduct two types of costs from\\nthose gross profits: the taxes that AES owes on its own profits and “direct expenses attributable\\nto the employees leased under [a client’s] account.” R. 1, Pg. ID 52. AES claims that the costs\\nof this litigation (including related state court actions) are such “direct expenses.” In interpreting\\nthe Consulting Agreement, we apply the “plain and ordinary meaning” of these terms. Rory v.\\nCont’l Ins. Co., 703 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Mich. 2005); see also Stryker Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins.\\nCo. of Pittsburgh, 842 F.3d 422, 426 (6th Cir. 2016) (applying Michigan law).\\n\\n This “direct expenses” argument does not go very far. Even assuming the meaning of the\\nphrase “direct expenses” could include the costs of this litigation, we do not interpret contract\\nlanguage in isolation. We must read “direct expenses” in context. See Mich. Twp. Participating\\nPlan v. Pavolich, 591 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). The full clause in the contract\\nsays that AES is only entitled to deduct “direct expenses attributable to the employees leased\\nunder [a client’s] account.” R. 1, Pg. ID 52 (emphasis added). “Attributable” essentially means\\n“produced by.” Oxford English Dictionary (2012). And the “employees leased” are AES’s\\nclients’ employees. Thus, the “direct expenses” clause covers expenses “produced by” the\\nemployees of one of AES’s clients. But neither AES’s clients nor its clients’ employees did\\nanything to produce these litigation expenses. None of AES’s clients are parties to this litigation,\\nand there is no suggestion that any of the clients’ employees are bringing claims for Rotondo’s\\nConsulting Fees—only the IRS and Akouri are. Indeed, AES’s briefing does not even mention\\nits clients’ employees or point to any evidence that the costs of this litigation could be attributed\\nto its clients’ employees. The litigation expenses from this case are not “attributable” to any of\\nAES’s employees at all—they are “attributable” to AES’s lawyers, the IRS, and Akouri. So,\\nunder the plain meaning of the Consulting Agreement, AES cannot deduct its litigation expenses\\nfrom Rotondo’s Consulting Fees.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n AES counters by saying that the purpose of this provision was to enhance its profitability.\\nThus, anything that lowers its profitability should be deducted from the Consulting Fees. But\\nsuch an expansive definition does not fit the language to which the parties agreed. Again, that\\nlanguage expressly limits AES’s deductions to only two categories—not anything that could\\n“significantly diminish[]” profit. 17-2068 Appellant Br. 20. We “honor the intent of the parties”\\nby enforcing their agreement “as written”—not based on whatever vague purposes can be\\nsupplied after the fact. Superior Commc’ns v. City of Riverview, 881 F.3d 432, 438 (6th Cir.\\n2018) (quoting Rasheed v. Chrysler Corp., 517 N.W.2d 19, 29 n.28 (Mich. 1998)). Accordingly,\\nAES may not deduct costs or attorneys’ fees on account of this provision.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Next, AES contends that the Asset Purchase Agreement allows it to deduct litigation\\nexpenses. AES relies on two interwoven provisions in this Agreement: the Indemnification\\nProvision and the Offset Provision. Our analysis again rests on the plain and ordinary meaning\\nof these provisions. Rory, 703 N.W.2d at 28.\\n\\n Indemnification Provision. This provision states that Rotondo and the Directional\\nEntities must “indemnify” AES from the costs of litigation in a variety of circumstances,\\nincluding “any claim, litigation or other action of any nature arising out of any act . . . prior to the\\ndate” the deal closed. R. 1, Pg. ID 19. The provision further requires Rotondo to indemnify\\nAES for litigation expenses incurred in “enforc[ing] the indemnification obligations.” Id. The\\nIndemnification Provision may indeed encompass expenses incurred in this litigation since\\nRotondo owed taxes and did not pay his loan before the deal closed.\\n\\n While Rotondo may owe AES money, it does not follow that AES can automatically\\ndeduct what it thinks Rotondo owes from the Consulting Fees. The Indemnification Provision\\ndoes not create an automatic right for AES to be paid. Instead, this provision qualifies Rotondo’s\\nindemnification obligation by stating that Rotondo must pay after AES has made a “demand.”\\nId. Without a demand, there is no right to payment under the contract. But there is no evidence\\nthat AES made such a demand—and thus no evidence that the Indemnification Provision has\\neven been triggered.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n Offset Provision. AES alternatively suggests that the last line of the Indemnification\\nProvision, called the Offset Provision, proves that it has an automatic right to deduct costs and\\nattorneys’ fees. The Offset Provision states that AES “shall have a right to offset such losses,\\ndamages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees against any sums owed by\\n[AES] to [Rotondo].” Id. AES thus argues that deducting costs and attorneys’ fees from the\\nConsulting Fees is merely executing this “right to offset.”\\n\\n AES’s argument once again falls short because it failed to consider the full context of the\\nOffset Provision. The Offset Provision only provides that an “offset” can occur for “such losses,\\ndamages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.” Id. (emphasis added).\\nBut does this mean that AES can offset automatically—and whenever it pleases—any losses\\ncaused by Rotondo against the fees owed him? What are “such . . . costs”? We can figure that\\nout with the help of a canon of textual interpretation: a “demonstrative adjective generally refers\\nto the nearest reasonable antecedent,” i.e., when a word like “such” is used, it is normally\\nreferring to something mentioned previously. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law:\\nThe Interpretation of Legal Texts § 18 (2012); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 27–28 (2003);\\nsee also Sims’s Lessee v. Irvine, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 425, 444 n.* (1799) (“The rule is, that ‘such’\\napplies to the last antecedent, unless the sense of the passage requires a different construction.”).\\n\\n Applying this canon, we look to what came before the Offset Provision in the Asset\\nPurchase Agreement. Immediately preceding the Offset Provision is a reference to costs\\nincurred when “enforc[ing] the indemnification obligations.” R. 1, Pg. ID 19. Perhaps “such”\\nrefers only to these enforcement costs. If that is the case, then AES is out of luck; no\\nenforcement costs currently exist because AES has not sought to enforce Rotondo’s\\nindemnification obligations. But the text of the Offset Provision cuts against interpreting “such”\\nas referring exclusively to costs incurred in enforcing the Indemnification Provision. The Offset\\nProvision refers not merely to “such . . . costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees”—losses that could\\nbe incurred trying to enforce the Indemnification Provision—but also “such . . . damages,\\nliabilities, [and] deficiencies.” It is hard to imagine how AES could incur the latter sort of\\nlosses—e.g., “damages”—by trying to enforce the Indemnification Provision. And the mention\\nof “damages, liabilities, [and] deficiencies” in the Offset Provision likely refers back to\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n“damage[s], liabilit[ies] or deficienc[ies]” mentioned in the opening sentence of the\\nIndemnification Provision. In other words, the Offset Provision is best read as referring to both\\nthe costs of enforcing the Indemnification Provision and the total costs that could be\\nindemnified.3\\n\\n But the broad coverage of the Offset Provision does not help AES here. Although the\\nOffset Provision allows AES to offset any sums Rotondo is obligated to pay under the\\nIndemnification Provision, Rotondo is not obligated to pay anything under that provision until\\nAES has made a demand. Because there is no evidence in the record that AES has made such a\\ndemand, Rotondo is not currently obligated to pay under the Indemnification Provision. And\\nthere is thus no outstanding payment obligation to trigger the Offset Provision.\\n\\n As there is no basis in either the Consulting Agreement or the provisions of the Asset\\nPurchase Agreement for AES to deduct its costs and attorneys’ fees from this litigation, we\\naffirm the district court’s contract interpretation. AES owes Rotondo the full amount of the\\nConsulting Fees, without deductions.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Although AES owes the full value of the Consulting Fees, Rotondo will not get to keep\\nthat money. Instead, the Consulting Fees will go to one of the two entities to whom he owes\\nmoney: either Akouri or the IRS. Both have a claim to Rotondo’s money. We must decide\\nwhich one has seniority, i.e., who gets paid. The district court granted summary judgment in\\nfavor of the IRS. Akouri challenges this conclusion, and we review de novo. 1st Source Bank v.\\nWilson Bank & Tr., 735 F.3d 500, 502 (6th Cir. 2013).\\n\\n Federal law controls the priority of a federal tax lien vis-à-vis other property interests.\\nUnited States v. Dishman Indep. Oil, Inc., 46 F.3d 523, 526 (6th Cir. 1995). And “priority for\\npurposes of federal law is governed by the common-law principle that ‘first in time is the first in\\nright.’” United States v. McDermott, 507 U.S. 447, 449 (1993) (quoting United States v. New\\nBritain, 347 U.S. 81, 85 (1954)). So it all comes down to timing: did the IRS’s interest come\\n\\n 3It would also be strange if AES could offset losses from trying to enforce the indemnification provision\\nbut could not offset the losses Rotondo had to indemnify in the first place.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nfirst, or did Akouri’s? We measure the timing of a federal tax lien by when the IRS gave notice\\nof its lien. 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a), (f). And we measure the timing of state security interests, like\\nAkouri’s, by when they become “choate”—i.e., complete or perfected. See United States v.\\nEquitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 384 U.S. 323, 328 (1966); see also Black’s Law\\nDictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining choate). In general, these interests become “choate” as a\\nresult of a state judgment or state attachment filing (“when there is nothing more to be done”).\\nBlachy v. Butcher, 221 F.3d 896, 905–06 (6th Cir. 2000).\\n\\n The IRS was first. The United States filed its notices of tax liens against Rotondo’s\\nassets between October 2007 and September 2013. Akouri, in contrast, did not receive a state\\njudgment against Rotondo until December 2013. Thus, the IRS’s liens have priority.\\n\\n Akouri does not dispute this analysis. Instead, Akouri tries to get around the IRS’s clear\\npriority in two ways. Both are an attempt to recategorize the customer list assets as originally\\nbelonging to Apex rather than the Directional Entities. If Apex really sold those customer lists to\\nAES, then Akouri says it can take priority over the IRS because of its purportedly senior security\\ninterest in Apex.\\n\\n First, Akouri claims Apex actually owned the customer lists that Rotondo sold to AES.\\nIn order to survive summary judgment on this theory, Akouri needed to first raise a genuine\\ndispute of material fact as to the ownership of the customer lists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,\\n477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). But Akouri has pointed to nothing in the record that disputes the\\npieces of evidence that tend to prove that the Directional Entities, not Apex, owned and then sold\\nthe customer lists to AES. First, the Asset Purchase Agreement contains schedules detailing\\nwhich customers’ information was being sold. These schedules list the owner of each\\ncustomer’s information, and only the Directional Entities are listed as owners. Second, there are\\ntwo examples of contracts that the Directional Entities proposed to a client to offer services.\\nThese “exemplar contracts” offer some proof that the Directional Entities were the companies\\nworking with the customers. Third, Rotondo submitted an affidavit stating that the “customer\\nassets . . . were owned by entities which were at no time subject to a lien . . . of Akouri.” R. 53-\\n6, Pg. ID 1529. Since Akouri did not have a lien on the Directional Entities, this too implies it\\nwas the Directional Entities that sold the customer lists.\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n While this may not be the strongest conceivable evidence, summary judgment is first and\\nforemost about dispute resolution; facts must be disputed by the party, like Akouri, that opposes\\nsummary judgment. See Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 378–79 (6th Cir. 2007)\\n(holding that the party opposing summary judgment is required to point to evidence in the record\\nthat creates an issue of fact). Rather than dispute any of the IRS’s evidence, Akouri has merely\\nsaid that there is not enough evidence to conclusively say the Directional Entities owned the\\ncustomer lists. We agree with the district court, however, that casting only “metaphysical doubt”\\nis insufficient to survive summary judgment. Matushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio\\nCorp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).4\\n\\n Akouri did, however, offer evidence that went to its second and altogether different\\ntheory of why Apex should be considered the owner of the customer lists. Even if the\\nDirectional Entities technically owned the customer lists, Akouri argues that they did not observe\\nvarious corporate formalities separating them from Apex. Thus, according to Akouri, the\\nDirectional Entities are just sham companies—“alter egos” of Apex. As “alter egos,” the\\nDirectional Entities would collapse back into one corporate form with Apex. And Akouri says it\\nhas a senior security interest in Apex.\\n\\n But this theory fails as well. As mentioned, a security interest can only defeat an IRS tax\\nlien if it is “choate.” Blachy, 221 F.3d at 905–06. An interest is only “choate” if it does not\\nrequire an additional judicial determination. Cf. United States v. Vermont, 377 U.S. 351, 355\\n(1964). It is one thing to casually describe the Directional Entities as “alter egos” of Apex, but it\\nis another to consider them “alter egos” as a matter of law. For the Directional Entities to be\\nlegally considered “alter egos,” a court would need to first make a judicial determination. See,\\ne.g., In re Two Springs Membership Club, 408 B.R. 453, 468–69 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009),\\nreversed on other grounds by United States v. Camp Coast to Coast, Inc., 424 B.R. 251 (N.D.\\nOhio 2010). Thus, Akouri’s interest under this theory remains inchoate because of the need for\\n\\n\\n\\n 4We also follow the district court in declining to decide if a Michigan state court decision has res judicata\\neffect on this question. It is unclear whether the state court decided the ownership question. New Hampshire v.\\nMaine, 532 U.S. 742, 748–49 (2001) (requiring “an issue of fact or law actually [be] litigated and resolved in a valid\\ncourt determination”).\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nan additional judicial determination. And an “inchoate” interest cannot take priority over the\\nIRS’s tax lien. Cf. McDermott, 507 U.S. at 449.\\n\\n Moreover, even if a court were to now decide that the Directional Entities are sham\\ncompanies, that determination would be too late. An interest becomes “choate” at a specific\\npoint in time—the federal law of priority does not allow for interests to “relat[e] back” to an\\nearlier time. Blachy, 221 F.3d at 905. Akouri’s interest would be choate as of 2019, not some\\nearlier date. But the IRS’s tax liens indisputably date to well before 2019, so Akouri’s interest\\nwould still not be “first in time.” Id.\\n\\n Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment in favor of the IRS.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n Akouri appeals two additional decisions by the district court. First, the district court\\ndenied Akouri’s motion for supplemental briefing, which included a request that the court\\nconsider new evidence on the ownership of the customer lists. Second, the district court declined\\nto exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Akouri’s additional state law fraudulent transfer claim.\\nAkouri concedes that we can only reverse these decisions if they were an abuse of discretion.\\nJones v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare Sys., 84 F. App’x 597, 599 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing In\\nre Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498, 516 (6th Cir. 1996)) (supplemental briefing); Harper v.\\nAutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 200 (6th Cir. 2004) (supplemental jurisdiction).\\n\\n Supplemental Briefing. After the magistrate judge finished his report and\\nrecommendation—and nearly three months after briefing concerning that report and\\nrecommendation had been completed—Akouri sought permission to file a supplemental brief\\nwith new evidence attached. This evidence came from new depositions that Akouri took in a\\nstate court action involving Rotondo and AES. Akouri says that the district court should have\\nconsidered this evidence. Docket control, however, is something that rests in the “sound\\ndiscretion of the district court.” In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d at 516 (alteration omitted).\\nAnd the district court pointed out that Akouri had the opportunity to request these depositions\\nduring federal discovery but did not. Had it sought these depositions, it then could have used\\nthem to develop additional arguments and included them in the various summary judgment\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nmotions. Further, to the extent that this evidence would lead to new legal arguments, the district\\ncourt explained Akouri had forfeited those arguments. See Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895,\\n902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000). Such reasoning was not an abuse of discretion.\\n\\n Akouri argues otherwise. Akouri says the district court would have denied an earlier\\nrequest for discovery as duplicative of its state court discovery. Therefore, it would have been\\nfruitless to ask. But we cannot know what the district court would have done if given the\\nopportunity to review Akouri’s request for evidence earlier. All we know is there was nothing\\nbarring Akouri from making a good faith request for discovery during the time allotted by the\\nparties, the magistrate judge, and the district court. Akouri made a strategic decision not to make\\nthat request. And when it finally got the depositions and sought to introduce them, the district\\ncourt reasonably explained why it was too late. Cf. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254\\n(1936) (stating that a court has inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its\\ndocket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”).\\n\\n In one last argument, Akouri points to an unpublished decision, Muhammad v. Close.\\nNo. 08–1944, 2009 WL 8755520, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 20, 2009) (order). But Muhammad did\\nnothing more than recognize the age-old truth that district courts must actually use the discretion\\nthat they have. Id. (remanding because district court did not appear to use its discretion in\\ndeciding whether to accept late evidence); cf. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here,\\nthe district court did so in its reasoned discussion of Akouri’s request. It simply exercised that\\ndiscretion in a way contrary to what Akouri wanted. Indeed, a district court never abuses its\\ndiscretion when it holds that an issue not actually presented to a magistrate judge is forfeited.\\nSee United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Marshall v. Chater, 75\\nF.3d 1421, 1426–27 (10th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases holding that issues raised for the first time\\nin objections to a magistrate judge’s report are deemed forfeited)). And Muhammad did not\\ncreate a different rule (nor could it). Accordingly, Muhammad neither calls into question the\\ndiscretion that the district court used here nor alters the district court’s forfeiture analysis.\\n\\n Supplemental Jurisdiction. As part of its cross-complaint below, Akouri alleged that the\\nsale of the customer lists from the Directional Entities to AES was a fraudulent conveyance\\nunder Michigan law. The district court dismissed this claim after it granted summary judgment\\n\\f Nos. 17-2068/2211 AES-Apex Employer Servs., et al. v. Rotondo, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nin favor of the IRS. Akouri’s dispute with the IRS was the basis of the court’s jurisdiction;\\nAkouri’s Michigan-law claim merely tagged along based on supplemental jurisdiction. This\\ndismissal was not an abuse of discretion. “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are\\neliminated before trial,” district courts should decline to “exercise jurisdiction over the remaining\\nstate-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7 (1988).\\n\\n Akouri claims this is not a usual case. It points out that three years had passed since it\\nfiled its state law claim. Therefore, Akouri argues, it was imprudent for the district court to\\ndismiss the state law claim since the litigation was no longer in its “early stages.” Id. at 350.\\nBut the progression of litigation is not measured so much in years as in the various and familiar\\nstages laid out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—there is the filing of the complaint,\\nnotice, answers to the complaint or motions to dismiss, discovery, motions for summary\\njudgment, trial, and final judgment. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 4, 12, 26, 40, 54, 56. So the\\nproper metric is how far Akouri’s state law claim was along these stages. The answer? Not far.\\nAkouri points to no discovery undertaken for this claim, and the docket discloses no motions for\\nsummary judgment on this claim either. Indeed, Akouri concedes that it instead sought most of\\nits discovery on these issues in the parallel state case. Thus, in terms of the stages of litigation\\nand the resources to be expended on it, Akouri’s state law claim was in its very early stages\\nindeed. See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559–60 & n.6 (2007) (discussing the\\nburdens and resource intensive nature of the discovery stage of litigation). The district court did\\nnot abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Akouri’s state law\\nclaim.\\n\\n * * *\\n\\n The district court properly interpreted the agreements between AES and Rotondo,\\nproperly granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS’s claim for the Consulting Fees, and did\\nnot abuse its discretion in denying Akouri’s requests for supplemental briefing and supplemental\\njurisdiction.\\n\\n We affirm.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2082,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4621394,"string":"4,621,394"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Ricky JACKSON (17-3840); Kwame Ajamu, Fka Ronnie Bridgeman, and Wiley Edward Bridgeman (17-3843), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND; Jerold Englehart; Karen Lamendola, Guardian Ad Litem on Behalf of Frank Stoiker; Estate of Eugene Terpay, Administrator; Estate of James T. Farmer, Administrator; Estate of John Staimpel, Administrator, Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Kwame Ajamu v. City of Cleveland"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-20"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3840; 17-3843"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Bush, Rogers\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"No. 1:15-cv-00989-Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0095p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n RICKY JACKSON (17-3840); KWAME AJAMU, fka ┐\\n Ronnie Bridgeman, and WILEY EDWARD BRIDGEMAN │\\n (17-3843), │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants, │\\n │\\n > Nos. 17-3840/3843\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n CITY OF CLEVELAND; JEROLD ENGLEHART; KAREN │\\n LAMENDOLA, Guardian Ad Litem on behalf of Frank │\\n Stoiker; ESTATE OF EUGENE TERPAY, Administrator; │\\n ESTATE OF JAMES T. FARMER, Administrator; ESTATE │\\n OF JOHN STAIMPEL, Administrator,\\n │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\\n No. 1:15-cv-00989—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: June 14, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 20, 2019\\n\\n Before: ROGERS and BUSH, Circuit Judges.*\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Elizabeth C. Wang, LOEVY & LOEVY, Boulder, Colorado, for all Appellants.\\nWilliam M. Menzalora, CITY OF CLEVELAND, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee City of\\nCleveland. Stephen W. Funk, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA, Akron, Ohio, for Appellees Karen\\nLamendola and the Estates of Eugene Terpay, James Farmer, and John Staimpel. ON BRIEF:\\nElizabeth C. Wang, LOEVY & LOEVY, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellant Ricky Jackson. Terry\\nH. Gilbert, Jacqueline C. Greene, FRIEDMAN & GILBERT, Cleveland, Ohio, David E. Mills,\\n\\n *The Honorable Damon J. Keith, United States Circuit Judge, was a member of the original panel but passed\\naway on April 28, 2019 and did not participate in the panel’s decision on rehearing.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nTHE MILLS LAW OFFICE LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants Kwame Ajamu and Wiley\\nBridgeman. William M. Menzalora, CITY OF CLEVELAND, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee City\\nof Cleveland. Stephen W. Funk, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA, Akron, Ohio, for Appellees\\nKaren Lamendola and the Estates of Eugene Terpay, James Farmer, and John Staimpel.\\n\\n BUSH, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which ROGERS, J., joined.\\n ________________________\\n\\n AMENDED OPINION\\n ________________________\\n\\n JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Appellants Ricky Jackson, Wiley Bridgeman, and Kwame\\nAjamu served a long time in prison for a crime they did not commit. For Jackson, it was thirty-\\nnine years; for Bridgeman, thirty-seven years; for Ajamu, twenty-five years. They each spent close\\nto two and a half of those years on death row.\\n\\n These men cannot get back any of the time they lost or erase the things they experienced.\\nThe best they can hope for is a remedy of damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio law. This\\nappeal concerns whether their complaints state sufficient facts for certain claims not to be\\ndismissed and whether the men have presented enough evidence for other claims to overcome\\nsummary judgment.\\n\\n In 1975, Jackson, Ajamu, and Bridgeman were convicted of murder. Their convictions\\nwere based largely on the purportedly eyewitness testimony of Edward Vernon, who then was\\nthirteen years old. In 2014, nearly forty years later, Vernon recanted, disclosing that police officers\\nhad coerced him into testifying falsely. Vernon’s recantation led to the overturning of appellants’\\nconvictions.\\n\\n The exonerated men filed suit in the Northern District of Ohio, alleging § 1983 claims\\nbased on alleged violations of their constitutional rights by the officers and the City of Cleveland\\n(“Cleveland”), along with state-law claims for indemnification against Cleveland. This appeal\\nrequires us to untangle a knot of legal issues surrounding the district court’s grant of appellees’\\nmotions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment and its denial of appellants’\\nmotions to amend their complaints. We AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment\\nas to the § 1983 claims based on conspiracy, but we REVERSE and REMAND the district court’s\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n(1) judgment on the pleadings as to the indemnification claims; (2) denial of appellants’ motions\\nto amend their complaints to substitute the administrator of the estates of the deceased officers as\\na party in their place; (3) summary judgment as to § 1983 claims arising from violations of Brady\\nv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), fabrication of evidence, and malicious prosecution; and (4)\\nsummary judgment as to claims against Cleveland based on Monell v. Department of Social\\nServices, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\nA. Factual Background\\n\\n As befits this stage of the litigation, we recite the relevant facts in the light most favorable\\nto the plaintiffs, who are appellants here. See Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d 461, 464 (6th Cir.\\n2006).\\n\\n In 1973, the Cleveland Division of Police promulgated General Police Order 19-73 (“GPO\\n19-73”), entitled “PRETRIAL DISCOVERY RIGHTS OF DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND\\nCOURTS IN CRIMINAL CASES.” R. 101-7, PageID 1630.1 GPO 19-73 provided that “defense\\ncounsel may be entitled” to several types of evidence, including “[e]vidence favorable to the\\ndefendant.” Id. But it also included a section entitled “EXCEPTION TO THE FOREGOING,”\\nwhich contained the following provision: “The foregoing does not authorize the discovery or the\\ninspection of . . . statements made by witnesses or prospective witnesses to state agents.” Id. The\\nManual of Rules used by the Division of Police (the “Manual”) did not otherwise instruct officers\\nin handling potentially exculpatory information and did not mention Brady, as the Manual’s last\\nupdate had occurred before Brady was decided.\\n\\n As described later in this opinion, some testimony suggests that Cleveland police officers\\nmay have received no formal training in their Brady obligations, and may not have known that\\nBrady imposed any obligations upon them.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1All record citations are citations to the record in No. 17-3840 (Jackson’s suit) unless otherwise indicated.\\nCitations to the record in Ajamu and Bridgeman’s suit will be prefaced by “No. 17-3843.”\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n Deposition testimony also reveals that, regardless of how officers understood their\\nobligations under Brady, violations of those obligations were common. Although it was generally\\nunderstood that anything in a detective’s file that was pertinent to a case “should go to the\\nprosecutor,” it was up to individual officers whether they followed this policy, and they did not\\nalways do so. R. 103, PageID 3794. The general practice at the time, followed in “every case,”\\nwas for detectives to provide prosecutors with only “arrest reports, witness forms and written\\nstatements taken by the Statement Unit,” and “photos,” while omitting to turn over other evidence,\\nincluding potentially exculpatory evidence, unless it was specifically requested by the prosecutor.\\nId. at PageID 3672–75. Deposition testimony describes this as a “practice,” which “happened\\nmore than it should,” of “detectives not [turning] over all the evidence to prosecutors.” R. 104,\\nPageID 3970.\\n\\n Some detectives took a more proactive role by “manipulating the evidence” before giving\\nit to prosecutors. Id. at PageID 3967. This was done, one officer testified, “because winning the\\ncase was what it was all about. It wasn’t about what was fair, it wasn’t about what was honest, it\\nwas about winning.” Id. at PageID 3967–68.\\n\\n Against this backdrop of evidence of incomplete Brady knowledge and frequent Brady\\nviolations, the record tells the following story.\\n\\n On May 19, 1975, Edward Vernon, then twelve years old, was riding the bus home from\\nschool when he heard two gunshots. Being twelve, Vernon exited the bus at the earliest\\nopportunity and ran to where he believed the shots originated. Coming upon the scene, Vernon\\nfound a gunshot victim, but nothing to indicate who was responsible for the shooting. After police\\nhad secured the area, Vernon left and met up with a friend who told Vernon that the perpetrators\\nwere Ricky Jackson, Kwame Ajamu (then known as Ronnie Bridgeman), and Wiley Bridgeman\\n(collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Vernon, a civic-minded youth, returned to the crime scene and told an\\nofficer that he knew who had committed the shooting, whereupon the officer recorded Vernon’s\\ncontact information.\\n\\n The next day, Detectives Eugene Terpay and James Farmer went to Vernon’s house and\\nrequested that he go down to the station to give a statement. As Vernon later recounted, when his\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nmother asked to accompany him to the station, the officers “told her, no, he’ll be all right, he’ll be\\nall right.” R. 99-1, PageID 1183. At the station, Vernon told Terpay and Farmer that Plaintiffs\\nhad committed the shooting and gave their descriptions, which he was able to do because he knew\\nthem from the neighborhood. The following day, Terpay and Farmer again went to Vernon’s\\nhouse and asked him for Plaintiffs’ addresses.\\n\\n Detective John Staimpel, along with his partner Frank Stoiker, was working the case with\\nTerpay and Farmer. On May 25, Staimpel and another detective, whose name Vernon cannot\\nremember, picked Vernon up at his house to bring him to a line-up. Vernon’s mother again asked\\nto accompany him, and Vernon recalls the detectives saying, “[N]o, he’ll be all right. We’ll bring\\nhim back after the lineup.” Id. at PageID 1189. The detectives brought Vernon to the line-up and,\\nas he recollects, asked him if “I see anybody that I recognize up there,” which Vernon interpreted\\nas asking whether he had seen anyone in the line-up commit the shooting. Id. at PageID 1190.\\nVernon replied that he had not. Ricky Jackson and Wiley Bridgeman, who had been arrested\\nearlier in the day, were in that line-up. From Vernon’s point of view, he had been forthright up\\nuntil this point: he had honestly told the detectives that (he thought) he knew who had committed\\nthe crime, but he had never said that he had actually witnessed the crime, and so when he was\\nasked at the line-up whether he saw anyone whom he had seen commit the crime, he said no.\\n\\n The two detectives then brought Vernon into a room, whereupon Staimpel accused Vernon\\nof lying, threatened to send his parents to jail for perjury, banged on a table, and used racial\\npejoratives to describe Vernon. (Vernon and Plaintiffs are African-Americans.) After Vernon\\nbegan to cry, Staimpel said, “[W]e’ll fix it,” and the detectives left the room. Id. at PageID 1191.\\nWhen the detectives returned, they gave Vernon a piece of paper, explained to him that it said he\\nhad failed to identify Jackson and Bridgeman in the line-up because he had been scared of their\\nretaliating, and told Vernon to sign it, which Vernon did.\\n\\n Stoiker signed a police report dated May 25, 1975, which described Stoiker and Staimpel’s\\npicking Vernon up and taking him to the line-up, Vernon’s failing to identify Jackson and\\nBridgeman, and Vernon’s explaining this failure as due to his being “very afraid” of Plaintiffs. R.\\n114-19, PageID 5113.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n The day after the line-up, Terpay and Farmer again spoke with Vernon. The detectives\\nbrought Vernon to the station, where he told them that he had not witnessed the crime and that he\\nhad never said that he had witnessed the crime. Terpay was wroth, yelling at Vernon and accusing\\nhim of having lied when he had gone to the line-up and said “that this is not them.” R. 99-1,\\nPageID 1194. Terpay threatened to send Vernon’s parents to jail for perjury, and Vernon agreed\\nto testify that he had seen Plaintiffs commit the crime.\\n\\n A police report dated May 28, 1975 indicates that Stoiker and Staimpel “[c]onsulted with\\n[the prosecutor] who issued papers charging [Plaintiffs] with [homicide].” R. 114-28, PageID\\n5321.\\n\\n Prior to Jackson’s trial, Terpay coached Vernon regarding his testimony and afterwards\\nreviewed the trial transcript with Vernon to ensure that his testimony in the trials of Bridgeman\\nand Ajamu was consistent.\\n\\n Plaintiffs were convicted at separate trials. They were sentenced to death, but their\\nsentences were later reduced to life imprisonment.\\n\\n For nearly forty years, Vernon struggled with the knowledge that his testimony had put\\nPlaintiffs in prison. He later testified, “Through out [sic] the years this case has . . . be[en] heavy\\non my emotion, my everything.” R. 99-2, PageID 1234. “I wanted to come forward throughout\\nthe years, but I was scared, scared to come forward and tell the truth . . . with this battle in my\\nmind, battle in my spirit, battle in my heart . . . . I’m battling with this . . . pretty much all my life\\n. . . .” R. 99-1, PageID 1203. The years did not lessen the turmoil in Vernon’s mind.\\n\\n One day in 2013, Vernon finally disburdened his conscience. He was lying in a hospital\\nbed, stricken with hypertension and kidney failure, when his pastor visited and told him that\\nInnocence Project attorneys were seeking to exonerate Plaintiffs. Vernon testified:\\n\\n So, after he stated that and I said, okay, well, you know what—I got up out of the\\n bed and I just broke down and I cried on his shoulder and I said, well, I’m ready to\\n tell the truth, I’m ready to come forward and tell the truth that Ricky Jackson did\\n not commit the crime that he went to prison for.\\n\\nId. at PageID 1203–04.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n Vernon formally recanted his testimony against each of the three Plaintiffs in November\\n2014. After the recantation, the prosecutor for Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is located,\\nadmitted that there was “no evidence tying any of the three convicted defendants to the crimes”\\nand that “[t]hey have been victims of a terrible injustice.” R. 116, PageID 6302–03.\\n\\nB. Procedural History\\n\\n On May 19, 2015, Jackson filed suit against Terpay, Farmer, Stoiker,2 Staimpel, and\\nCleveland (collectively, “Defendants”), as well as others,3 alleging a multitude of state and federal\\nclaims. Bridgeman and Ajamu filed suit against the same defendants on July 2, 2015. On October\\n1, 2015, Cleveland moved for judgment on the pleadings, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n12(c), as to the state-law claims in both complaints. The district court granted both motions.\\n\\n In November 2015, Jackson, and Bridgeman and Ajamu in their parallel lawsuit, all moved\\nfor leave to file amended complaints substituting the administrator of the estates of the deceased\\nDefendants (the “administrator”) for those Defendants. (J. Reid Yoder is the administrator of all\\nof the estates.) The district court denied those motions as futile, reasoning that a § 1983 claim\\nbrought in Ohio does not survive a defendant’s death.\\n\\n On January 27, 2017, Stoiker (the only living individual Defendant) moved for summary\\njudgment in both lawsuits, arguing that he was not involved in any unconstitutional activity and\\nthat, even if he was, he is protected by qualified immunity. On the same date, Cleveland also\\nmoved for summary judgment as to the Monell claims, arguing that Plaintiffs had failed to provide\\nevidence sufficient for a jury to find Cleveland liable. The district court granted both motions for\\nsummary judgment.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2Karen Lamendola is acting as guardian ad litem on behalf of Stoiker and is therefore the named defendant-\\nappellee representing Stoiker’s interests. We continue to refer to Stoiker as a Defendant for narrative convenience.\\n 3Plaintiffs also named another former officer, Jerold Englehart, in their notices of appeal. However, in their\\nappellate briefs, they expressly abandon their claims against Englehart. Jackson Br. at 33; Ajamu & Bridgeman Br.\\nat 6.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n\\n We review de novo a judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n12(c), applying the same standard we apply to review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule\\n12(b)(6). Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 623 F.3d 281, 284 (6th Cir. 2010).\\nWe therefore “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all\\nallegations as true” to determine whether the “complaint . . . contain[s] sufficient factual matter,\\naccepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Doe v. Miami Univ., 882\\nF.3d 579, 588 (6th Cir. 2018) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).\\n\\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that leave to amend “should [be] freely\\ngive[n] . . . when justice so requires.” “We review a district court’s order denying a Rule 15(a)\\nmotion to amend for an abuse of discretion.” Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d\\n417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir.\\n1990)). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact,\\nuses an erroneous legal standard, or improperly applies the law.” United States v. Arny, 831 F.3d\\n725, 730 (6th Cir. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\\n\\n “We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Adair v. Charter Cty.\\nof Wayne, 452 F.3d 482, 486 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Allen v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 405,\\n409 (6th Cir. 1999)). Summary judgment is appropriate when “no genuine dispute as to any\\nmaterial fact” exists and the moving party “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.\\nCiv. P. 56(a). “A genuine dispute of material fact exists ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable\\njury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Peffer v. Stephens, 880 F.3d 256, 262 (6th\\nCir. 2018) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). At the summary\\njudgment stage, “the evidence is construed and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the\\nnonmoving party.” Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 471 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Hawkins v.\\nAnheuser-Busch, Inc., 517 F.3d 321, 332 (6th Cir. 2008)).\\n\\n Numerous decisions by the district court are now on appeal: (1) the district court’s\\ndismissal, with prejudice, of Plaintiffs’ claims against Cleveland for indemnification under state\\nlaw; (2) the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motions to substitute the administrator of the\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\ndeceased Defendants’ estates as a defendant; (3) the district court’s grant of summary judgment to\\nStoiker on the § 1983 claims; and (4) the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Cleveland\\non the Monell claims. We address each issue in turn.\\n\\nA. Indemnification Claims\\n\\n The claims against Cleveland under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B)4 seek\\nindemnification for damages based on the alleged torts of the individual Defendants, who are\\nformer employees of Cleveland. Section 2744.07(B) provides that “a political subdivision shall\\nindemnify and hold harmless an employee” found liable for that employee’s acts, so long as the\\nemployee was “acting in good faith” and “within the scope of employment.”5 The district court\\ngranted Cleveland’s motions for judgment on the pleadings, reasoning that § 2744.07(B) provides\\nonly a tortfeasor employee, and not a tort victim, with the right to bring a claim of indemnification\\nagainst the tortfeasor’s employer.\\n\\n Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in dismissing their indemnification claims with\\nprejudice because the claims were not yet ripe and unripe claims, if they are to be dismissed, should\\nonly be dismissed without prejudice.\\n\\n Generally, a claim may not be adjudicated on its merits unless it is ripe. See Nat’l Rifle\\nAss’n of Am. v. Magaw, 132 F.3d 272, 284 (6th Cir. 1997). A claim is unripe when it “is anchored\\nin future events that may not occur as anticipated, or at all.” Id. (citing Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v.\\nState Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190, 200–01 (1983); Dames & Moore\\nv. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 689 (1981)). This prohibition comes both from the case or controversy\\nrequirement of Article III and from prudential considerations. See Brown v. Ferro Corp., 763 F.2d\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4At the time of the district court’s opinion, the relevant language appeared in\\n § 2744.07(A)(2), so the district\\ncourt cited that provision. See Jackson v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:15CV989, 2016 WL 3952117, at *2 (N.D. Ohio\\nJuly 20, 2016). Because the Ohio Revised Code has since been amended, we cite the subsection in which the relevant\\nlanguage now appears, subsection (B). The language has not been changed in any way that would affect the district\\ncourt’s, or our, analysis.\\n 5Cleveland’s brief does not address whether the defendant officers were acting “in good faith” and within\\nthe scope of their employment for purposes of the indemnification claims, and the district court did not consider those\\nissues. We will not address unargued principles of Ohio law on which the district court did not rule.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\n798, 801 (6th Cir. 1985) (noting that a ripeness analysis includes a discretionary determination\\nbeyond the Article III standing considerations).\\n\\n The ripeness doctrine exists “to prevent the courts, through premature adjudication, from\\nentangling themselves in abstract disagreements.” Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co.,\\n473 U.S. 568, 580 (1985) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967)).\\nApplication of this doctrine “requires that the court exercise its discretion to determine if judicial\\nresolution would be desirable under all of the circumstances.” Brown, 763 F.2d at 801. Of primary\\nimportance is “whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution,” and, if so, the\\ndegree of “hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied” before the claim is allowed to ripen\\nfurther. Young v. Klutznick, 652 F.2d 617, 625 (6th Cir. 1981) (quoting Toilet Goods Ass’n v.\\nGardner, 387 U.S. 158, 162 (1967)).\\n\\n Indemnification claims are frequently brought while unripe, depending as they often do on\\nthe favorable adjudication of underlying tort claims. Because of this, as a general matter, a claim\\nfor indemnification for damages that may be awarded on an underlying tort claim should not be\\nadjudicated on the merits until the underlying claim is adjudicated. See, e.g., Safety Nat’l Cas.\\nCorp. v. Am. Special Risk Ins. Co., 99 F. App’x 41, 43 (6th Cir. 2004) (finding unripe a claim of\\nindemnification for fraudulent conveyance because, among other reasons, the underlying claim for\\nfraudulent conveyance had not yet been adjudicated); see also Armstrong v. Ala. Power Co., 667\\nF.2d 1385, 1388–89 (11th Cir. 1982) (affirming dismissal of indemnity suits as premature prior to\\nentry of judgment in underlying lawsuit); A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Constr.\\nCo., 559 F.2d 928, 932 (4th Cir. 1977) (holding indemnification issue not ripe prior to adjudication\\nof underlying claims).\\n\\n Because the ripeness doctrine is discretionary, courts sometimes apply an exception for\\nindemnification claims that have no possibility of success, regardless of the merits of the\\nunderlying claims. See, e.g., Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Grand Pointe, LLC, No. 1:05-CV-161, 2006\\nWL 1806014, at *9 (E.D. Tenn. June 29, 2006) (collecting cases in support of the proposition that\\n“a court may grant summary judgment on the issue of indemnification if it can determine the\\nallegations in the complaint could under no circumstances lead to a result which would trigger the\\nduty to indemnify” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n The Sixth Circuit has not analyzed the propriety of this exception, and we need not do so\\nnow because, even if it is permissible for district courts to adjudicate indemnification claims with\\nno possibility of success prior to the adjudication of underlying tort claims, this is not such a case.\\n\\n If Plaintiffs’ indemnification claims have no possibility of success, that would be because\\nOhio law provides that only the tortfeasor employees, and not the parties injured by them, may\\nbring claims under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B). The district court did an admirable job\\nanalyzing Ohio court cases before holding that Ohio law does so provide. See Jackson v. City of\\nCleveland, No. 1:15CV989, 2016 WL 3952117, at *2 (N.D. Ohio July 20, 2016). But the only\\ncases available to the district court were from the Ohio courts of appeal, as the Ohio Supreme\\nCourt had yet to opine on the issue.\\n\\n The judgments of Ohio appellate courts not being binding on the Ohio Supreme Court,\\nthere remains a possibility that Plaintiffs’ indemnification claims could succeed: Plaintiffs would\\nneed to win their underlying tort action and, while that action was pending, the Ohio Supreme\\nCourt would need to adopt their interpretation of Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B). Although the\\nlatter eventuality may seem remote, it is far from impossible and, as it happens, the Ohio Supreme\\nCourt has accepted an appeal addressing this very issue. See Ayers v. Cleveland, 106 N.E.3d 65\\n(Ohio 2018) (Table).\\n\\n Because it is not impossible for Plaintiffs to prevail on their indemnification claims, those\\nclaims are not ripe for adjudication. As discussed above, in evaluating whether a claim is ripe,\\ncourts should determine (1) whether a matter is “appropriate for judicial resolution” and\\n(2) whether the parties would undergo hardship “if judicial relief is denied” on their claim before\\nit ripens further. Young, 652 F.2d at 625. Neither factor supports finding the indemnification\\nclaims are ripe here.\\n\\n First, interpreting Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B) is best avoided unless necessary.\\nFederal courts generally avoid interpreting unsettled state law because state “courts are in the better\\nposition to apply and interpret” their own jurisdiction’s law. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bowling\\nGreen Prof’l Assocs., PLC, 495 F.3d 266, 272 (6th Cir. 2007). As the Supreme Court said in\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nRailroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) and repeated in Louisiana\\nPower & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25 (1959):\\n\\n Had we or they (the lower court judges) no choice in the matter but to decide what\\n is the law of the state, we should hesitate long before rejecting their forecast of\\n [state] law. But no matter how seasoned the judgment of the district court may be,\\n it cannot escape being a forecast rather than a determination.\\n\\nThibodaux, 360 U.S. at 27 (quoting Pullman, 312 U.S. at 499). Where, as here, adjudicating an\\nissue of state law is unnecessary because the litigation is in its early stages, and state law is\\nunsettled, the inappropriateness of deciding the issue in federal court weighs in favor of finding\\nthe claim unripe for adjudication in federal court.\\n\\n Second, that no harm will befall Cleveland if “judicial relief is denied” for the time being\\nalso weighs in favor of finding the indemnification claims unripe. Young, 652 F.2d at 625. The\\ndistrict court’s grant of Cleveland’s motions for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’\\nindemnification claims did not release Cleveland from the litigation, as Plaintiffs still have Monell\\nclaims outstanding against Cleveland. The only effect that denying Cleveland’s motions, or\\nholding them in abeyance, would have on the litigation would be to delay adjudication of the\\nindemnification claims until a later stage in the litigation. At that point, the district court may be\\nable to avoid interpreting Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B), because the Ohio Supreme Court may\\nalready have done so. The district court should interpret Ohio law only if the Ohio Supreme Court\\nhas not done so by the time the underlying § 1983 claims have been properly adjudicated on\\nremand, and if those claims are found to have merit.\\n\\n The ripeness doctrine therefore requires that the indemnification claims not be adjudicated\\non the merits at the pleading stage, given the unsettled condition of state law. Because “a dismissal\\nwith prejudice operates as a rejection of the plaintiff’s claims on the merits,” the district court erred\\nin dismissing those claims with prejudice. Mich. Surgery Inv., LLC v. Arman, 627 F.3d 572, 575\\n(6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. One Tract of Real Prop., 95 F.3d 422, 425–26 (6th Cir.\\n1996)).\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nB. Plaintiffs’ Motions to Substitute\\n\\n Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaints to substitute the administrator of the\\nestates of Defendants Terpay, Staimpel, and Farmer as a party in place of those Defendants, as\\nthey are now deceased. District courts “should freely give leave” to amend a complaint pre-trial\\n“when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). One permissible reason to deny leave is the\\n“futility of [the] amendment[s].” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).\\n\\n The district court denied leave to amend, reasoning that § 1983 claims brought in Ohio do\\nnot survive the death of the tortfeasor, and, therefore, the requested amendments would be futile.6\\nOn appeal, Defendants argue that the district court was correct, but also suggest an alternative\\nground for affirming—that Plaintiffs did not timely present their claims to the estates of the\\ndeceased Defendants. We address the survival and timeliness arguments in turn.\\n\\n 1. Survival of § 1983 Claims\\n\\n Defendants first argue that the denial of Plaintiffs’ motions to amend should be affirmed\\nbecause § 1983 claims do not survive the death of the tortfeasor in Ohio.\\n\\n 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) provides that in actions to protect civil rights, where “the laws of the\\nUnited States . . . are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish\\noffenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes\\nof the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held,” shall be\\napplied, “so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”\\n\\n The Supreme Court has interpreted this statutory language as requiring a three-step process\\nfor determining which jurisdiction’s procedural law, such as provisions concerning statutes of\\nlimitations or the survival of claims, is used in § 1983 suits. See Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S.\\n584, 588–89 (1978). First, a district court must determine whether there is an applicable federal\\nlaw that covers the issue, and, if there is, apply it. See id. Second, if there is no relevant federal\\nlaw, then the district court must determine what the appropriate rule is in the state where the district\\n\\n\\n 6The district court also denied leave to amend on futility grounds with regard to Plaintiffs’ state-law claims\\nagainst the deceased Defendants, but Plaintiffs do not appeal that ruling.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\ncourt sits. See id. at 588. Third, the district court must determine whether the law of that state is\\n“inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States;” if there is no inconsistency, the\\nstate law is used, but if inconsistency exists, a federal common-law rule is used. Id. at 588–89.\\n\\n Because “[n]o federal statute or rule says anything about the survivorship of § 1983\\nclaims,” Crabbs v. Scott, 880 F.3d 292, 294 (6th Cir. 2018), we turn to the relevant Ohio law,\\nwhich provides:\\n\\n In addition to the causes of action which survive at common law, causes of\\n action for mesne profits, or injuries to the person or property, or for deceit or fraud,\\n also shall survive; and such actions may be brought notwithstanding the death of\\n the person entitled or liable thereto.\\n\\nOhio Rev. Code § 2305.21. Plaintiffs argued before the district court that their claims fall within\\n“injuries to the person,” while Defendants argued that “injuries to the person” encompasses only\\nphysical injuries, and not the violation of rights alleged in this case. The district court agreed with\\nDefendants, citing a district court case holding that under Ohio law, § 1983 claims similar to those\\nbrought by Plaintiffs did not involve “injuries to the person.” Tinney v. Richland Cty., No. 1:14\\nCV 703, 2014 WL 6896256, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 8, 2014), aff’d, 678 F. App’x 362 (6th Cir.\\n2017).\\n\\n On appeal, Defendants again argue that Plaintiffs’ claims for malicious prosecution,\\nfabrication of evidence, and Brady violations cannot be characterized as “injuries to the person”\\nthat survive the death of the tortfeasor. Therefore, they argue that Tinney controls the result here.\\nDefendants also argue that State ex rel. Crow v. Weygandt, 162 N.E.2d 845, 848 (Ohio 1959), an\\nOhio Supreme Court case holding that state-law claims for malicious prosecution do not survive\\nthe death of a party, means that Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for malicious prosecution also do not\\nsurvive. The Weygandt court based its holding on Ohio Revised Code § 2311.21, which provided:\\n\\n Unless otherwise provided, no action or proceeding pending in any court\\n shall abate by the death of either or both of the parties thereto, except actions for\\n libel, slander, malicious prosecution, for a nuisance, or against a judge of a County\\n Court for misconduct in office, which shall abate by the death of either party.\\n\\nThis provision is still in effect, its language unamended since the Weygandt decision except for\\none capitalization change. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2311.21. Finally, Defendants point to Stein-\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\nSapir v. Birdsell, 673 F.2d 165, 167 (6th Cir. 1982), a Sixth Circuit case recognizing the Weygandt\\nrule.\\n\\n Neither Defendants’ reliance on Tinney nor their argument based on Weygandt is\\npersuasive. To begin with, the Sixth Circuit’s unpublished opinion affirming the district court in\\nTinney is no longer good law. After the district court’s judgment in this case, Tinney was\\nsuperseded by Crabbs, a published opinion of this circuit that expressly rejected Tinney’s holding\\nand held instead that all § 1983 claims are subject to the forum state’s survival rules for personal\\ninjury actions, regardless of the specific type of injury underlying the § 1983 claim. See Crabbs,\\n880 F.3d at 296.\\n\\n It is immaterial that Crabbs addressed an unreasonable search claim under the Fourth and\\nFourteenth Amendments, see id. at 293, whereas Plaintiffs’ claims here are for malicious\\nprosecution, fabrication of evidence, and Brady violations. Crabbs expressly disagreed with\\nTinney, which did involve a malicious prosecution claim. The Tinney plaintiff had sued in Ohio;\\ntherefore, his § 1983 claims were subject to Ohio survival rules just as Plaintiffs’ claims are here.\\nNoting that the Tinney court did not apply Ohio’s survival rule for personal injury actions to a\\n§ 1983 malicious prosecution claim, the Crabbs court announced that it was “part[ing] way with”\\nTinney. Crabbs, 880 F.3d at 296. With that language, Crabbs rejected Tinney’s reasoning\\npertaining to malicious prosecution claims.\\n\\n If the explicit rejection of Tinney were not enough to defeat Defendants’ argument, the\\nCrabbs court’s more general discussion of its rationale would be. Although Crabbs involved an\\nunreasonable search claim, the reasoning applied to all § 1983 claims. See 880 F.3d at 296. In\\nexplaining that all § 1983 claims must be classified together for purposes of determining what state\\nprocedural rules apply, the Crabbs court cited Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985), in which\\nthe Supreme Court addressed what state statute of limitations should apply in § 1983 actions. See\\nCrabbs, 880 F.3d at 294–95. (After Wilson was decided, Congress enacted a federal statute of\\nlimitations, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1658.) Crabbs cited Wilson for three general propositions.\\n“First, the characterization of § 1983 as a cause of action is itself a question of federal law . . . .\\nSecond, all § 1983 claims must be characterized in the same way . . . . Third, § 1983 actions are\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\nbest characterized as personal injury actions.” Crabbs, 880 F.3d at 294–95 (second emphasis\\nadded) (citing Wilson, 471 U.S. at 269–70, 271–75, 280).\\n\\n More specifically, the Crabbs court reasoned that all § 1983 claims must be treated the\\nsame way for survival-of-claims purposes, just as they are for statute-of-limitations purposes. Id.\\nat 295. The court’s language could not be clearer: “the appropriate level at which to generalize a\\n§ 1983 claim under state law is as a personal injury action, sounding in tort, and nothing further.”\\nId. at 296 (emphasis added). Therefore, although Weygandt and Ohio Revised Code § 2311.21\\nare still good law, after Crabbs, they do not establish a separate survival rule for malicious\\nprosecution claims brought under § 1983.\\n\\n Our court’s 1982 decision in Stein-Sapir is not to the contrary. Although Defendants argue\\nthat that opinion adopted the Weygandt rule, all Stein-Sapir did was apply Weygandt—and an Ohio\\nCourt of Appeals decision extending Weygandt’s survival rule to libel and slander claims—to hold\\nthat the plaintiff’s state-law defamation claims did not survive the defendant’s death. See Stein-\\nSapir, 673 F.2d at 167. Stein-Sapir involved only state law and did not mention § 1983.\\n\\n When hearing a direct appeal, this court evaluates the merits of the case based on the\\ncurrent law and its interpretation, not the law and its interpretation existing when the district court\\nentered its judgment. See Chaz Concrete Co., LLC v. Codell, 545 F.3d 407, 409 (6th Cir. 2008).\\nAfter Crabbs, all claims brought under § 1983 are to be treated as actions sounding in personal\\ninjury tort. Because Ohio Revised Code § 2305.21 provides that actions for personal injury survive\\nthe death of the tortfeasor, and that statute does not conflict with the laws of the United States, see\\nCrabbs, 880 F.3d at 295, all § 1983 actions brought in Ohio survive the death of the tortfeasor.\\n\\n Therefore, through no fault of its own because its ruling predated Crabbs, the district court\\nwas in error as to its grounds for finding that the proposed amendments, substituting the\\nadministrator of the estates of Terpay, Staimpel, and Farmer for those Defendants, would be futile.\\n\\n 2. Timeliness of Plaintiffs’ Claims Against the Estates\\n\\n Defendants argue that we should affirm the district court on alternative grounds—namely,\\nthat the claims against the estates were not timely brought. Proper adjudication of this issue\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\nrequires analysis of both Ohio and federal law. Defendants argue that Ohio estate law regarding\\nthe timely filing of claims defines which entities have the capacity to be sued, while Plaintiffs\\nargue that those provisions are merely statutes of limitations. See Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2117.06,\\n2117.37.\\n\\n The points of contention do not end there, however. If Plaintiffs are correct that Ohio estate\\nlaw merely establishes statutes of limitations, the parties also dispute whether those statutes or the\\ngeneral Ohio statute of limitations applies to § 1983 suits. On the other hand, if Defendants are\\ncorrect that Ohio estate law defines which entities have the capacity to be sued, the parties also\\ndisagree over whether federal courts hearing § 1983 actions are bound by that definition, as well\\nas whether an exception to that definition, provided in Ohio Revised Code § 2117.06(G), applies\\nto the facts of this case.\\n\\n The district court did not address these issues, instead relying on its holding that the § 1983\\nclaims did not survive the deaths of the deceased Defendants.7 “It is the general rule that a federal\\nappellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.” Lindsay v. Yates, 498 F.3d\\n434, 441 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Henry, 429 F.3d 603, 618 (6th Cir. 2005)). This\\ndirective is not jurisdictional, however, and “a departure from this general rule may be warranted\\nwhen ‘the issue is presented with sufficient clarity and completeness and its resolution will\\nmaterially advance the progress of this already protracted litigation.’” Katt v. Dykhouse, 983 F.2d\\n690, 695 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., 838 F.2d 1445,\\n1461 (6th Cir. 1988)).\\n\\n We will follow the general rule and decline to address these issues in the first instance.\\nThese are thorny issues of first impression in this circuit, and because the district court has not yet\\naddressed them, we do not believe they are “presented with sufficient clarity and completeness”\\nfor our review. Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7The district court did address timeliness with regard to Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, but Plaintiffs do not\\nchallenge that analysis on appeal. The timeliness analysis required for the § 1983 claims differs from that required\\nfor the state-law claims: the former involves a three-step analysis to determine the applicable law, as described in\\nsection II(B)(1), supra. See Robertson, 436 U.S. at 588–89. The district court did not conduct this analysis.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\n 3. Conclusion\\n\\n The district court erred in finding that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments would be futile on\\nthe ground that § 1983 claims brought in Ohio do not survive the deaths of the tortfeasors, and we\\ndecline to address whether Defendants have presented an alternative ground on which the district\\ncourt’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motions to amend could be affirmed. Because applying the wrong\\nlegal standard constitutes reversible error on abuse of discretion review, United States v. Arny, 831\\nF.3d 725, 730 (6th Cir. 2016), the district court’s denial of the motions to file amended complaints\\nis REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.\\n\\nC. Stoiker’s Motion for Summary Judgment\\n\\n We next address the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Stoiker on the § 1983\\nclaims that Stoiker violated Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by withholding\\nexculpatory evidence, fabricating evidence, and conspiring to do the same, and Plaintiffs’ Fourth\\nAmendment right to be free of malicious prosecution.\\n\\n If a police officer violates the Constitution, “42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a civil remedy for\\nthose” injured by the violation. Peffer v. Stephens, 880 F.3d 256, 263 (6th Cir. 2018). But officers\\nsued under the aegis of § 1983 are protected from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity\\n“insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of\\nwhich a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)\\n(quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). Qualified immunity does not apply if\\n(1) “on the plaintiff’s facts,” a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) the alleged violation was\\nof “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”\\nHoover v. Radabaugh, 307 F.3d 460, 465 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Dickerson v. McClellan, 101\\nF.3d 1151, 1158 (6th Cir. 1996)).\\n\\n The district court found that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find\\nthat Stoiker had committed any of the alleged constitutional violations. We address each of the\\nappealed determinations in turn.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\n 1. Constitutional Violations\\n\\n a. Withholding Exculpatory Evidence\\n\\n The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state may “deprive\\nany person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within\\nits jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. In Brady v.\\nMaryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), the Supreme Court held “that the suppression by the\\nprosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the\\nevidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of\\nthe prosecution.” Prosecutors are not the only state actors bound by Brady, and “police can commit\\na constitutional deprivation analogous to that recognized in Brady by withholding or suppressing\\nexculpatory material.” Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351, 379 (6th Cir. 2009).\\n\\n Brady claims have three elements: “[1] the evidence at issue must be favorable to the\\naccused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; [2] that evidence must have\\nbeen suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and [3] prejudice must have\\nensued.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281–82 (1999).\\n\\n The district court granted summary judgment to Stoiker on the ground that Plaintiffs had\\nfailed to present evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the second element—that Stoiker\\nhad suppressed evidence. It did so for two reasons. First, it held that there was insufficient\\nevidence for a jury to find that Stoiker was involved with the unconstitutional activity at all, noting\\nthat Vernon had never identified Stoiker as one of the officers involved.8 Second, even if Stoiker\\nwere involved, the district court held, there was insufficient evidence that he was aware of any\\nexculpatory evidence, and an officer unaware of exculpatory evidence cannot suppress that\\nevidence.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8“The only evidence that points to Stoiker’s involvement are the signatures on the statement and the report.\\nHowever, even if those are Stoiker’s signatures, Plaintiff has not cited to any policy, practice, or procedure about the\\nmeaning or effect of signature [sic]. Therefore, the Court is left to speculate as to what the signature meant.” Jackson\\nv. City of Cleveland, CASE NO. 1:15CV989, 2017 WL 3380456, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017).\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\n We disagree with the district court’s reasoning. Given the evidence in the record, although\\na jury might ultimately find that Stoiker did not suppress evidence, it would not be unreasonable\\nin finding that he had.\\n\\n Consider the following evidence. Vernon testified that Staimpel and another officer led\\nhim into a room after he failed to identify Plaintiffs at a line-up and coerced him into signing a\\nfalse statement about that line-up. Staimpel testified at trial that (1) Stoiker was his partner and\\n(2) Stoiker was present for the line-up. Based on Staimpel’s testimony, a reasonable jury could\\ninfer that (3) Stoiker was present during the post-line-up interview of Vernon and (4) Stoiker was\\npresent when Vernon signed his false statement explaining his “fear” of Plaintiffs.\\n\\n In addition, the record contains a police report, signed by Stoiker and dated the day that\\nVernon testified he was coerced into signing a false statement by two detectives, detailing the\\nversion of the line-up and subsequent interview that Vernon alleges were fabricated. The district\\ncourt is correct that the report does not say that Stoiker was involved in that line-up and interview,\\nbut a jury is “allowed to make reasonable inferences from facts proven in evidence having a\\nreasonable tendency to sustain them,” Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372, 396 (1943), and it\\nis reasonable to infer that a detective who signs a report was involved in the events recounted in\\nthat report.\\n\\n Because of this proof, a reasonable jury could find that Stoiker was present when Vernon\\nwas coerced into signing the allegedly false statement, in which he claimed that he had failed to\\nidentify Jackson and Bridgeman in the line-up because he was afraid of them. And if Stoiker was\\npresent when Vernon was coerced into signing the allegedly false statement, he knew that Vernon\\nhad not given fear of Plaintiffs as his true reason for not identifying them—in other words, that the\\nstatement was false. That knowledge was exculpatory evidence. See Giglio v. United States, 405\\nU.S. 150, 154 (1972) (“When the reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt\\nor innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within [Brady’s disclosure]\\nrule.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). If Stoiker was present, he also knew that\\ndetectives coerced Vernon’s statement, which was a related, but separate, piece of exculpatory\\nevidence. See id.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\n In addition, a reasonable jury could find that Stoiker was aware of a third piece of\\nexculpatory evidence. While his possible awareness of this evidence is less clear-cut than of the\\nabove-mentioned pieces of exculpatory evidence, it would not be unreasonable for a jury to infer\\nthat Stoiker knew Vernon had said he had not seen Plaintiffs commit the crime with which they\\nwere charged. Whether or not Stoiker was told by other officers that Vernon had not seen Plaintiffs\\ncommit the murder, Vernon stated that he was asked at the line-up “if I could recognize anyone\\nthere who was at the shooting” and that he answered that question in the negative.9 R. 99-3,\\nPageID 1236.\\n\\n Stoiker and the district court interpret that question as asking whether Vernon recognized\\nanyone in the line-up. Vernon interpreted it as asking whether he had seen anyone in the line-up\\ncommit the crime.10 If Vernon’s interpretation is correct, then the officers present—which a\\nreasonable jury could find included Stoiker—knew that Vernon was claiming he had not seen\\nPlaintiffs commit the crime when he answered “No” to their question. A reasonable jury could\\nfind that Vernon, the only witness to the events who has testified to the contents of that\\nconversation, interpreted the question correctly.\\n\\n As Stoiker did not disclose any of this evidence to prosecutors, a reasonable jury could find\\nthat Stoiker suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady.\\n\\n As to the third element of a Brady claim, a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiffs suffered\\nprejudice as a result of the alleged suppression. To show prejudice, Plaintiffs must show that the\\nallegedly suppressed evidence was “material;” in other words, “that there is a reasonable\\nprobability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict.” Strickler, 527\\nU.S. at 280, 281. Because Vernon’s coerced statement formed the core of the prosecution’s case,\\nthere is a reasonable likelihood that, had the juries in Plaintiffs’ trials known that that statement\\nwas fabricated and coerced, or that Vernon had orally stated that he had not seen the shooting, the\\n\\n\\n\\n 9As mentioned in section I(A), supra, Vernon alternatively recalled that he may have been asked if “I see\\nanybody that I recognize up there.” R. 99-1, PageID 1190.\\n 10Vernon later explained that he answered in the negative because “I didn’t seen happen [sic] on May 19,\\n1975.” R. 99-2, PageID 1233.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\njuries would not have convicted Plaintiffs. Therefore, a reasonable jury could find all three\\nelements of a Brady claim satisfied.\\n\\n b. Fabricating Evidence\\n\\n The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is also “violated when evidence is\\nknowingly fabricated and a reasonable likelihood exists that the false evidence would have affected\\nthe decision of the jury.” Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 737 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing\\nStemler v. City of Florence, 126 F.3d 856, 872 (6th Cir. 1997)).\\n\\n Stoiker presents two arguments for why summary judgment was appropriate on this issue.\\nFirst, he contends there was insufficient evidence that he was involved in the fabrication of\\nVernon’s statement. Second, Stoiker argues there was insufficient evidence that the fabricated\\nstatement affected the decision of the jury. The district court agreed with both of Stoiker’s\\narguments.\\n\\n Turning to the first argument, a reasonable jury could find, as discussed in section\\nII(C)(1)(a), supra, that Stoiker was in the room when Vernon was initially intimidated, left the\\nroom with Staimpel, and then returned to the room with Staimpel, at which point Staimpel coerced\\nVernon into signing the statement. This does not necessarily entail that Stoiker participated in the\\ncreation of the false statement, but a reasonable jury could infer that Stoiker either drafted, or\\nassisted Staimpel in drafting, the false statement. If Stoiker was actively involved in the fabrication\\nof the false statement, he knowingly fabricated evidence.\\n\\n As for the second argument, there is, in fact, sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to\\nconclude that the false statement influenced the juries at Plaintiffs’ trials. True, as the district court\\nnoted, although the statement was introduced in evidence by the defense at Jackson’s trial, it was\\nused only by defense counsel in an attempt to impeach Vernon’s testimony and “it is unclear\\nwhether the jury in the Jackson trial had the statement while they were deliberating.” 11 Jackson\\nv. City of Cleveland, CASE NO. 1:15CV989, 2017 WL 3380456, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017).\\n\\n\\n 11Although the possibility is ultimately unnecessary to our holding on the fabrication-of-evidence claims,\\nwe note that because Vernon’s statement was introduced in evidence at Jackson’s trial, a reasonable jury could infer\\nthat the jury that convicted Jackson had access to the statement at some point in their deliberations.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\nAlso, the statement was not admitted in evidence at Bridgeman’s or Ajamu’s trial at all. And it is\\nfair to conclude, as the district court reasoned, that “Vernon’s live testimony,” not the statement,\\n“led to the conviction[s] in all three trials.” Id.\\n\\n But the relevant question is not whether the fabricated evidence was shown to the jury; it\\nis whether the statement affected the decision of the jury. For example, a fabricated search warrant\\naffidavit, used to obtain evidence later shown to the jury, can form the basis for a fabrication-of-\\nevidence suit. See Webb v. United States, 789 F.3d 647, 670 (6th Cir. 2015). And fabricated\\nevidence that “is used as [the] basis for a criminal charge” can form the basis for a § 1983 claim\\nbecause, absent that evidence, there would have been no jury. Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273,\\n294 n.19 (3d Cir. 2014).\\n\\n A reasonable jury in the present case could find that the fabricated statement impacted the\\njuries’ decisions in the criminal trials in at least two ways. First, the prosecutor testified that his\\nunderstanding of Vernon’s statement was based on the copy in the police report and that, if he had\\nknown what had actually happened on the day of the line-up, he would have declined to prosecute:\\nhe does not, as he put it, “believe in prosecuting innocent people.” R. 114-29, PageID 5350. The\\nprosecutor did not speak to Vernon prior to bringing charges, and so the false statement constituted\\nthe entire basis for his understanding of Vernon’s involvement. If Staimpel and Stoiker had not\\nfabricated Vernon’s statement, therefore, charges would not have been brought, and, of course, a\\njury that is never empaneled is a jury that does not return a guilty verdict.\\n\\n A jury in the present case also could find that the falsified statement caused the criminal\\nverdicts because the statement coerced Vernon to testify in conformance with it. Unlike Staimpel’s\\nbaseless threat to prosecute Vernon’s parents if Vernon failed to sign a statement saying that he\\nhad seen Plaintiffs commit the crime, Vernon would have faced a real threat of prosecution for\\nperjury had his testimony conflicted with his earlier signed statement. See Osburn v. State, 7 Ohio\\n212, 214–15 (1835) (admitting as evidence of perjury a paper signed by the defendant).\\n\\n A reasonable jury could therefore find both that Stoiker participated in the fabrication of\\nVernon’s statement and that there is a reasonable probability the statement affected the juries at\\nPlaintiffs’ trials.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\n c. Conspiracy to Withhold and Fabricate Evidence\\n\\n To make out a claim for conspiracy to deprive them of their due process rights, Plaintiffs\\nmust show “that (1) a single plan existed, (2) the conspirators shared a conspiratorial objective to\\ndeprive the plaintiffs of their constitutional rights, and (3) an overt act was committed in\\nfurtherance of the conspiracy that caused the injury.” Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 622 (6th\\nCir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Revis v. Meldrum, 489 F.3d 273, 290 (6th\\nCir. 2007)).\\n\\n For the reasons discussed above, a reasonable jury could find that Stoiker and Staimpel\\nplanned to draft a false statement and coerce Vernon into signing that statement and that they\\ncommitted an overt act in furtherance of that plan. Further supporting the conspiracy claim, it\\nwould not be unreasonable for a jury to infer that the detectives planned to withhold the existence\\nof their acts from prosecutors for the purpose of tipping the scales against Plaintiffs, as informing\\nprosecutors of the coercion would have rendered their actions meaningless.\\n\\n However, the inquiry does not end there. We must also determine whether an individual\\ncan be held liable for conspiracy when the alleged conspiracy was undertaken by agreement with\\nanother individual or individuals employed by the same entity as the defendant.\\n\\n The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, which states that if “all of the defendants are\\nmembers of the same collective entity, there are not two separate ‘people’ to form a conspiracy,”\\nhas been applied to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) by this court. Johnson v. Hills & Dales Gen. Hosp.,\\n40 F.3d 837, 839–40 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hull v. Cuyahoga Valley Joint Vocational Sch. Dist.\\nBd. of Educ., 926 F.2d 505, 510 (6th Cir. 1991)). Section 1985(3) creates a cause of action for a\\nconspiracy between two or more persons to deprive another of the equal protection of the laws.\\n\\n We have also held that the doctrine applies in § 1985(2) suits. Doherty v. Am. Motors\\nCorp., 728 F.2d 334, 339 (6th Cir. 1984). 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) creates a cause of action for a\\nconspiracy to, among other actions, obstruct justice or to intimidate a party, witness, or juror.\\n\\n But this circuit has never decided whether the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine also\\napplies to suits under § 1983. See DiLuzio v. Vill. of Yorkville, 796 F.3d 604, 615 (6th Cir. 2015)\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 25\\n\\n\\n(noting that “the Sixth Circuit has never held that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to\\nmunicipal government officials in a § 1983 action and the district courts within our circuit are split\\non this question”). To determine whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether\\nStoiker conspired to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, therefore, we must resolve this issue\\nof first impression.\\n\\n We are aware of only one circuit, the Eleventh, that has squarely addressed the issue and\\nhas determined that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies in § 1983 actions as in § 1985\\nactions. See Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240, 1261 (11th Cir. 2010); Rehberg v. Paulk,\\n611 F.3d 828, 854 (11th Cir. 2010). By contrast, we are aware of no circuit that has applied the\\ndoctrine in § 1985 actions but declined to apply it in § 1983 actions.12\\n\\n We join the Eleventh Circuit and hold that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies\\nin § 1983 suits to bar conspiracy claims where two or more employees of the same entity are\\nalleged to have been acting within the scope of their employment when they allegedly conspired\\ntogether to deprive the plaintiff of his rights. See Grider, 618 F.3d at 1261–62; cf. Johnson, 40 F.3d\\nat 841 (“[W]hen employees act outside the course of their employment, they and the corporation\\nmay form a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).”). We so hold because the considerations that\\nsupport applying the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in § 1985 suits pertain equally to the\\n§ 1983 context, and we discern no logical distinction upon which to treat § 1983 conspiracy claims\\ndifferently. Cf. Hull, 926 F.2d at 509–10 (holding that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine\\napplies to § 1985(3) claims and stating “that this court’s opinion in Doherty [which applied the\\ndoctrine to § 1985(2)—not § 1985(3)—claims] is dispositive of this issue”). Recognizing that\\ndistrict courts within this circuit have split on the question,13 we will explain why the reasons for\\napplying the doctrine to § 1983 outweigh the reasons for not doing so.\\n\\n\\n 12Some courts have held that the doctrine does not apply in the civil rights context at all. See, e.g., Brever v.\\nRockwell Int’l Corp., 40 F.3d 1119, 1126–27 (10th Cir. 1994).\\n 13Compare Vaduva v. City of Xenia, No. 3:17-cv-41, 2017 WL 4773076, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2017)\\n(applying the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in § 1983 suit); Gillespie v. City of Battle Creek, 100 F. Supp. 3d 623,\\n631–32 (W.D. Mich. 2015) (same); Wright v. Bloomfield Twp., No. 12-15379, 2014 WL 5499278, at *15–16 (E.D.\\nMich. Oct. 30, 2014) (same); Pardi v. Cty. of Wayne, No. 12–12063, 2013 WL 1011280, at *14–15 (E.D. Mich. Mar.\\n14, 2013) (same); Audio Visual Equip. & Supplies, Inc. v. Cty. of Wayne, No. 06-10904, 2007 WL 4180974, at *5–6\\n(E.D. Mich. Nov. 27, 2007) (same); Adcock v. City of Memphis, No. 06-2109, 2007 WL 784344, at *4–5 (W.D. Tenn.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 26\\n\\n\\n The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine was recognized in antitrust and civil rights cases\\nbased on the legal notion of corporations as “persons.” See Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube\\nCorp., 467 U.S. 752, 769 n.15 (1984); Doherty, 728 F.2d at 339. When employees of a corporation\\nact to further the purposes of that “person,” principles from the law of agency dictate that those\\nemployees be treated not as separate “persons” but as part of the same “person.” See Hull, 926\\nF.2d at 509–10; Doherty, 728 F.2d at 339. We have recognized the relevance of these principles\\nto suits against employees of local government entities as well as against employees of private\\ncorporations. See Hull, 926 F.2d at 509–10. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that\\nmunicipalities are “persons” for purposes of § 1983. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,\\n690 (1978).\\n\\n Because the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine follows from the legal definition of\\n“person,” which includes local governments, the doctrine has been developed to deal with the\\nquestion whether there are two separate persons to form a conspiracy. See Hull, 926 F.2d at 510.\\nThe doctrine’s application to other civil rights statutes has not been premised upon any factor\\nunique to those statutes. We therefore see no reason to decline to apply the doctrine to § 1983.\\nSection 1983 creates a cause of action against any “person” who deprives a plaintiff of his rights,\\njust like § 1985. Therefore, if § 1985 cannot be violated by an alleged conspiracy where the\\nalleged conspirators are all employees of the same entity acting within the scope of their\\nemployment, neither can § 1983.\\n\\n Furthermore, we decline to adopt the rationale that because “[§] 1985 is in its essence a\\nconspiracy statute[,] [while] [§] 1983 is not,” the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to the\\nformer but not the latter. Kinkus v. Vill. of Yorkville, 476 F. Supp. 2d 829, 840 (S.D. Ohio 2007).\\nAlthough § 1983 does not expressly contemplate a cause of action for conspiracy, once we have\\nrecognized such a cause of action—which we have, see, e.g., DiLuzio, 796 F.3d at 615–16—the\\nquestion whether a conspiracy can exist where all alleged conspirators work for the same entity,\\n\\n\\nMar. 13, 2007) (same); Turner v. Viviano, No. 04-CV-70509-DT, 2005 WL 1678895, at *13 (E.D. Mich. July 15,\\n2005) (same), with Tinney v. Richland Cty., No. 1:14 CV 703, 2015 WL 542415, at *12 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 10, 2015)\\n(declining to apply the doctrine in a § 1983 suit), aff’d on other grounds, 678 F. App’x 362 (6th Cir. 2017); Kinkus v.\\nVill. of Yorkville, 476 F. Supp. 2d 829, 839–40 (S.D. Ohio 2007) (same), rev’d on other grounds, 289 F. App’x 86\\n(6th Cir. 2008).\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 27\\n\\n\\nand are alleged to have been acting in the scope of their employment, naturally arises. That inquiry\\nis identical under § 1983 and § 1985. After all, we did not apply the intracorporate conspiracy\\ndoctrine in § 1985 actions on a theory that the text of that particular statutory provision demanded\\nit. Instead, we simply adopted a conspiracy jurisprudence that developed outside the civil rights\\ncontext. See Hull, 926 F.2d at 509.\\n\\n Nor do we see any reason to limit application of the doctrine to cases in which a\\nmunicipality is alleged to have conspired with one or more of its employees, in contrast to cases\\nin which two or more employees are alleged only to have conspired with each other. We have\\nmade clear that “members of the same legal entity cannot conspire with one another as long as\\ntheir alleged acts were within the scope of their employment.” Jackson v. City of Columbus, 194\\nF.3d 737, 753 (6th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added) (citing Johnson, 40 F.3d at 840), abrogated on\\nother grounds by Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002); accord Hull, 926 F.2d at\\n510. In Hull, we applied the doctrine to bar the plaintiff’s § 1985(3) claim alleging conspiracy\\nagainst “a school district superintendent, the executive director of the district, and a school\\nadministrator, all of whom [were] employees or agents of the Board [of Education].” 926 F.2d at\\n510. The plaintiff did not allege that the school board itself was a conspirator, but we noted that\\n“[s]ince all of the defendants [were] members of the same collective entity, there [were] not two\\nseparate ‘people’ to form a conspiracy.” Id.\\n\\n Finally, we have recognized an exception to the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in\\n§ 1985(3) suits where the defendants were alleged to have been acting outside the scope of their\\nemployment, see Johnson, 40 F.3d at 841, and we have indicated that the exception would apply\\nequally in the § 1983 context were we to apply the doctrine in § 1983 suits, see DiLuzio, 796 F.3d\\nat 616. Accordingly, the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to § 1983, and we assume that\\nadopting the doctrine entails adopting the exception. Cf. DiLuzio, 796 F.3d at 616. But the scope-\\nof-employment exception is unsupported by the record here because Plaintiffs have alleged that\\nStoiker and the other individual Defendants were acting “within the scope of their employment.”\\nR. 86, PageID 1018; No. 17-3843, R. 53, PageID 707.\\n\\n Therefore, as a matter of law, Stoiker cannot be liable for conspiracy in violation of § 1983\\nwhere he is alleged to have conspired with other employees of the same government entity, in the\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 28\\n\\n\\nscope of their employment, to violate Plaintiffs’ rights. The district court’s grant of summary\\njudgment to Stoiker on the conspiracy claims is AFFIRMED.\\n\\n d. Malicious Prosecution\\n\\n The Fourth Amendment begins: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,\\nhouses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”\\nU.S. Const. amend. IV. Amongst other protections, this guarantee affords people the right to be\\nfree of unjust prosecution. See Mills v. Barnard, 869 F.3d 473, 479–80 (6th Cir. 2017).14\\n\\n A malicious-prosecution claim has four elements: “(1) that a criminal prosecution was\\ninitiated against the plaintiff and that the defendant ma[d]e, influence[d], or participate[d] in the\\ndecision to prosecute; (2) that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution;\\n(3) that, as a consequence of a legal proceeding, the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of\\nliberty . . . apart from the initial seizure; and (4) that the criminal proceeding must have been\\nresolved in the plaintiff’s favor.”15 Id. at 480 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks\\nomitted) (quoting Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 308–09 (6th Cir. 2010)).\\n\\n There being no dispute that Plaintiffs suffered a deprivation of liberty or that the criminal\\nproceedings were resolved in their favor, we need only address the first two elements.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14Although we now analyze constitutional claims for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment,\\n“[p]rior to January 1994 . . . this circuit analyzed [such claims] as accruing under the Fourteenth rather than the Fourth\\nAmendment.” Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1006 (6th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). We ceased doing so\\nafter the Supreme Court held in Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271, 273–75 (1994) that malicious-prosecution\\nclaims must be asserted under the Fourth Amendment rather than the Fourteenth. In so holding, the Albright Court\\nrecognized “the Fourth Amendment’s relevance to the deprivations of liberty that go hand in hand with criminal\\nprosecutions.” Id. at 274 (citing Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 114 (1975)).\\n 15There are two types of § 1983 claims, both sounding in the Fourth Amendment, that are sometimes referred\\nto as “malicious prosecution” claims. One is for the wrongful institution of legal process (which is the type most\\nproperly called a “malicious prosecution” claim) and the other is for continued detention without probable cause. See\\nCleary v. Cty. of Macomb, 409 F. App’x 890, 898 (6th Cir. 2011); see also Gregory, 444 F.3d at 747–49 (stating that\\nclaims for continued detention without probable cause are not properly considered “malicious prosecution” claims,\\nbut recognizing that courts’ use of terminology varies). Although Plaintiffs are not always clear as to their intended\\ntheory of liability, they and Stoiker state the test for, and perform their analysis under, the wrongful institution of legal\\nprocess theory, and we will do the same.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 29\\n\\n\\n i. Stoiker Influenced or Participated in the Decision to Prosecute\\n\\n The first element of the malicious-prosecution claim is met when an officer “could\\nreasonably foresee that his misconduct would contribute to an independent decision that results in\\na deprivation of liberty” and the misconduct actually does so. Sykes, 625 F.3d at 316 (quoting\\nHigazy v. Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 177 (2d Cir. 2007)). This element is met when an officer\\nincludes “misstatements and falsehoods in his investigatory materials” and those materials\\ninfluence a prosecutor’s decision to bring charges. Id.\\n\\n A reasonable jury could find that Stoiker’s misconduct influenced the decision to bring\\ncharges against Plaintiffs for two reasons. First, Stoiker and Staimpel “[c]onsulted with [the\\nprosecutor] who issued papers charging [Plaintiffs] with [homicide].” R. 114-28, PageID 5321.\\nAlthough the record does not indicate the contents of that consultation, it is reasonable to infer that\\nit involved false statements about Vernon’s identification of Plaintiffs and that this consultation\\ninfluenced the prosecutor’s decision to bring charges against Plaintiffs.\\n\\n Second, the prosecutor’s only knowledge of Vernon’s involvement when deciding to bring\\ncharges was based on Vernon’s statement, a statement that a jury could reasonably find to have\\nbeen fabricated by Stoiker. And the prosecutor later testified that had he known about what\\nactually happened on the day of the line-up—because Stoiker and Staimpel had told him during\\nconversation, or because they had drafted an accurate statement for Vernon, or because Stoiker\\nhad drafted an accurate report concerning that day’s events—the prosecutor would not have\\nproceeded to trial.\\n\\n ii. There Was a Lack of Probable Cause for the Criminal Prosecution\\n\\n When a grand jury returns an indictment against a defendant, this creates a “presumption\\nof probable cause,” which is rebuttable by showing that:\\n\\n (1) [A] law-enforcement officer, in the course of setting a prosecution in motion,\\n either knowingly or recklessly ma[de] false statements (such as in affidavits or\\n investigative reports) or falsifie[d] or fabricate[d] evidence; (2) the false statements\\n and evidence, together with any concomitant misleading omissions, [we]re material\\n to the ultimate prosecution of the plaintiff; and (3) the false statements, evidence,\\n and omissions d[id] not consist solely of grand-jury testimony or preparation for\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 30\\n\\n\\n that testimony (where preparation has a meaning broad enough to encompass\\n conspiring to commit perjury before the grand jury).\\n\\nKing v. Harwood, 852 F.3d 568, 587–88 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n\\n As discussed above, a reasonable jury could find that Stoiker falsified or fabricated\\nevidence, and that the evidence did not consist solely of grand-jury testimony or preparation for\\nthat testimony. Stoiker argues, however, that even if he fabricated Vernon’s false statement, that\\nstatement could not have been material to the grand jury’s determination of probable cause, as it\\nwas not presented to the grand jury. Although Vernon may have testified to the grand jury in\\nconformance with his fabricated statement, Stoiker argues, it was Vernon’s testimony, not the\\nearlier statement, that impacted the grand jury’s decision.\\n\\n But a careful reading of King shows that fabricated evidence can be material to a grand\\njury’s determination of probable cause without being presented to the grand jury. If only evidence\\npresented to a grand jury could be material to that grand jury’s decision, plaintiffs would be faced\\nwith the Scylla and Charybdis of either admitting that the fabricated evidence was not material or\\nclaiming that it was material because it was presented to the grand jury, thereby gracing the\\nfabricator with the absolute immunity afforded to grand jury testimony. See id. at 589.\\n\\n Instead, plaintiffs can show that a fabrication was material to the grand jury’s determination\\nby showing “that the officer has made knowing or reckless false statements or has falsified or\\nfabricated evidence in the course of setting a prosecution in motion.” Id. Here, according to the\\nprosecutor, had Stoiker not fabricated Vernon’s statement, there would have been no grand jury.\\nBut even had there been one, Vernon would not have testified falsely before it. Stoiker’s\\nfabrication was therefore material to the grand jury’s determination because it “was material to the\\nultimate prosecution” of Plaintiffs.16 Id. at 587–88.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16Stoiker does not argue that there was sufficient evidence to find probable cause to prosecute Plaintiffs\\nabsent Vernon’s testimony.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 31\\n\\n\\n 2. Qualified Immunity\\n\\n The statute now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was originally passed in 1871. It was not\\nuntil the second half of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court recognized that § 1983\\nadmitted of an implicit doctrine, born of the common law, known as qualified immunity. See\\nPierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 555, 557 (1967). Since then this doctrine has grown considerably,\\nbut not without its critics. See, e.g., Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1162 (2018) (Sotomayor,\\nJ., dissenting) (arguing that a “one-sided approach to qualified immunity transforms the doctrine\\ninto an absolute shield for law enforcement officers, gutting the deterrent effect of the Fourth\\nAmendment”). Qualified immunity has outgrown its original justifications, which were “rooted\\nin historical analogy” and “based on the existence of common-law rules in 1871.” Wyatt v. Cole,\\n504 U.S. 158, 170 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring).\\n\\n Responding to the many and varied suits brought under § 1983, the judiciary recrafted that\\nlimited version of the doctrine of qualified immunity in an effort to protect public officials “from\\nundue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of liability.” Elder v.\\nHolloway, 510 U.S. 510, 514 (1994) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 806 (1982)).\\nWe therefore no longer “attempt[] to locate [the qualified immunity] standard in the common law\\nas it existed in 1871,” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1871 (2017) (Thomas, J., concurring), but\\ninstead attempt to determine whether a defendant, by his conduct, “violate[d] clearly established\\nstatutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow, 457\\nU.S. at 818.\\n\\n At issue in this appeal is whether, in 1975, the constitutional rights allegedly violated by\\nStoiker were sufficiently clearly established to deprive him of the protection of qualified immunity.\\nIt is a plaintiff’s burden to show that the right at issue was clearly established. Harris v. Klare,\\n902 F.3d 630, 637 (6th Cir. 2018). Although the Supreme Court “do[es] not require a case directly\\non point for a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must have placed the statutory or\\nconstitutional question beyond debate.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (alteration in\\noriginal) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308\\n(2015)). In examining “existing precedent,” “we may rely on decisions of the Supreme Court,\\ndecisions of this court and courts within this circuit, and in limited instances, on decisions of other\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 32\\n\\n\\ncircuits.” Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1006 (6th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); accord\\nHearring v. Sliwowski, 712 F.3d 275, 280 (6th Cir. 2013).\\n\\n The Supreme Court has recognized “that officials can still be on notice that their conduct\\nviolates established law even in novel factual circumstances” and has “rejected a requirement that\\nprevious cases be ‘fundamentally similar’” to the facts in a case to render qualified immunity\\ninapplicable. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002) (quoting United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S.\\n259, 263 (1997)); see also id. at 753–54 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“Certain actions so obviously\\nrun afoul of the law that an assertion of qualified immunity may be overcome even though court\\ndecisions have yet to address materially similar conduct.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).\\nAnd we have noted that “‘[g]eneral statements of the law’ are capable of giving clear and fair\\nwarning to officers even where ‘the very action in question has [not] previously been held\\nunlawful.’” Smith v. Cupp, 430 F.3d 766, 776–77 (6th Cir. 2005) (second alteration in original)\\n(quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)).\\n\\n a. Withholding Exculpatory Evidence\\n\\n In 1975, it was clearly established law that prosecutorial withholding of exculpatory\\nevidence violates a criminal defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. See Brady\\nv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86–87 (1963). Multiple circuits had also recognized by that time that\\n“Brady-derived” claims could be based on the conduct of law-enforcement officers—as distinct\\nfrom prosecutors—who had allegedly withheld exculpatory evidence. See Clarke v. Burke,\\n440 F.2d 853, 855 (7th Cir. 1971) (“This is not to say that there can never be a due process violation\\nif the prosecutor does not know that the police has in its possession evidence possibly favorable to\\nthe defendant . . . . It has been held . . . that knowledge of the police is knowledge of the prosecutor\\n. . . .” (citations omitted)); Smith v. Florida, 410 F.2d 1349, 1351 (5th Cir. 1969) (“[I]t makes no\\ndifference if the withholding is by the prosecutor or by officials other than the prosecutor.” (citing\\nBarbee v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary, 331 F.2d 842 (4th Cir. 1964))); Barbee, 331 F.2d at 846; cf.\\nJackson v. Wainwright, 390 F.2d 288, 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1968) (noting that “lower federal courts”\\napplying Brady “ha[d] emphasized the harm to the defendant rather than the prosecutor’s motive\\nin failing to disclose exculpatory evidence” and finding a violation of the “duty to disclose . . .\\nexculpatory statements” where “there was no evidence of the prosecutor’s bad faith or of\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 33\\n\\n\\noverreaching by the prosecution” (emphasis added)); Curran v. Delaware, 259 F.2d 707, 713 (3d\\nCir. 1958) (finding a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when a police officer perjured\\nhimself at trial, regardless of whether the prosecutor was aware of the perjury).\\n\\n In Barbee, decided the year after Brady, the Fourth Circuit addressed the habeas claim of\\na man who argued his conviction violated due process because law-enforcement officers had not\\ndisclosed the existence of ballistics and fingerprint reports that “cast grave doubt upon” his guilt.\\nBarbee, 331 F.2d at 844. Responding to the state’s argument that the man was required, and had\\nfailed, to show that the prosecutor knew about the reports, the court stated:\\n\\n Nor is the effect of the nondisclosure neutralized because the prosecuting attorney\\n was not shown to have had knowledge of the exculpatory evidence. Failure of the\\n police to reveal such material evidence in their possession is equally harmful to a\\n defendant whether the information is purposely, or negligently, withheld. And it\\n makes no difference if the withholding is by officials other than the prosecutor. The\\n police are also part of the prosecution, and the taint on the trial is no less if they,\\n rather than the State’s Attorney, were guilty of the nondisclosure. If the police\\n allow the State’s Attorney to produce evidence pointing to guilt without informing\\n him of other evidence in their possession which contradicts this inference, state\\n officers are practicing deception not only on the State’s Attorney but on the court\\n and the defendant . . . . If the police silence as to the existence of the reports resulted\\n from negligence rather than guile, the deception is no less damaging.\\n The duty to disclose is that of the state, which ordinarily acts through the\\n prosecuting attorney; but if he too is the victim of police suppression of the material\\n information, the state’s failure is not on that account excused.\\n\\nId. at 846 (footnotes omitted).\\n\\n The above cases, decided prior to Plaintiffs’ trials, make clear that the duty to disclose\\nevidence falls on the state as a whole and not on one officer of the state particularly, and it was\\ntherefore clearly established by the time of those trials that Stoiker had a Fourteenth Amendment\\nobligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.\\n\\n It was also clearly established that impeachment evidence, such as the fact that a witness\\nwas coerced into making a fabricated statement, qualifies as exculpatory. See Giglio v. United\\nStates, 405 U.S. 150, 153–55 (1972) (holding that evidence that the government had procured an\\ninformant’s testimony by suggesting he could escape prosecution through cooperating was\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 34\\n\\n\\n“material” evidence “affecting credibility” that should have been disclosed to the defense under\\nBrady).\\n\\n Stoiker argues that a Seventh Circuit case shows that it is not clearly established even now\\nthat officers are under a Brady obligation to disclose their own or fellow officers’ fabrication of\\nevidence. In Saunders-El v. Rohde, 778 F.3d 556, 558 (7th Cir. 2015), the plaintiff sued police\\nofficers under Brady, alleging that the officers failed to disclose that they had severely beaten the\\nplaintiff and planted his blood at a crime scene. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff had not\\nalleged a violation of Brady because “Brady does not require the creation of exculpatory evidence,\\nnor does it compel police officers to accurately disclose the circumstances of their investigations\\nto the prosecution.” Id. at 562.\\n\\n Even if we were bound by Saunders-El, which we are not, it would not foreclose our\\nholding. Because Brady and its progeny are concerned only with ensuring that a defendant\\nreceives a fair trial, “Brady is concerned only with cases in which the government possesses\\ninformation which the defendant does not.” United States v. Graham, 484 F.3d 413, 417 (6th Cir.\\n2007) (citation omitted). And so if a defendant knows at the time of trial that the government has\\nfabricated evidence, as in Saunders-El,17 officers do not violate Brady by failing to tell prosecutors\\nthat evidence has been fabricated.18 Had Plaintiffs argued that Stoiker violated Brady only by\\nfailing to disclose that Vernon’s statement was inaccurate, Stoiker’s reliance on Saunders-El might\\nbe appropriate, as Plaintiffs already knew that Vernon’s statement was inaccurate. But Plaintiffs\\ndid not know that Vernon’s statement had been coerced, and that fact could have been used to\\nimpeach Vernon’s testimony at trial. Therefore, Stoiker had an obligation to disclose that fact to\\nPlaintiffs.\\n\\n Finally, as discussed in section II(C)(1)(a), supra, an additional piece of exculpatory\\nevidence that Stoiker may have possessed was the knowledge of Vernon’s un-coerced statement\\n\\n\\n 17Indescribing the circumstances of the alleged fabrication of crime-scene evidence underlying his Brady\\nclaim, the Saunders-El plaintiff indicated that he had known about the fabrication all along. See Saunders-El, 778 F.3d\\nat 558.\\n 18This does not necessarily entail that such a situation would involve no other constitutional violations, of\\ncourse.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 35\\n\\n\\nto Terpay and Farmer that he had not seen the shooting at all. That statement was exculpatory\\nevidence separate from the fact that Vernon’s signed statement was false, and there is no evidence\\nthat Plaintiffs knew of Vernon’s exculpatory statement. Therefore, even if Saunders-El were\\ncontrolling, we would hold that Plaintiffs had alleged a violation of clearly established rights with\\nregard to Stoiker’s alleged withholding of exculpatory evidence of which Plaintiffs were not\\naware.\\n\\n Stoiker is not entitled to qualified immunity on the withholding-of-evidence claims.\\n\\n b. Fabricating Evidence\\n\\n It is difficult to countenance any argument that a law-enforcement officer in 1975 would\\nnot be “on notice [his] conduct [was] unlawful” when coercing a witness into perjuring himself in\\na capital trial. Hope, 536 U.S. at 739 (citation omitted). The obvious injustice inherent in\\nfabricating evidence to convict three innocent men of a capital offense put Stoiker on notice that\\nhis conduct was unlawful. Cf. id. at 745 (stating, in evaluating qualified immunity in the Eighth\\nAmendment context, that “[t]he obvious cruelty inherent in [tying a prisoner to a hitching post “for\\nan extended period of time in a position that was painful, and under circumstances that were both\\ndegrading and dangerous”] should have provided respondents with some notice that their alleged\\nconduct violated [the prisoner’s] constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment”).\\n\\n More concretely, as far back as 1935, the Supreme Court recognized that the introduction\\nof fabricated evidence violates “the fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our\\ncivil and political institutions.” Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935) (citing Hebert v.\\nLouisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316 (1926)). And in 1942, the Supreme Court held that when a witness\\nperjures himself because of threats from police officers, the defendant suffers “a deprivation of\\nrights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.” Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 216 (1942).\\n\\n The only difference between those cases and the present one is that those cases involved\\nthe use of fabricated evidence at trial, whereas this one involves the use of fabricated evidence to\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 36\\n\\n\\naffect a jury in a manner other than by introducing the evidence at trial. 19 However, we have\\nrecognized that a Fourth Amendment claim based on the fabrication of evidence does not require\\nthat “false testimony [have been] given at trial.” Spurlock, 167 F.3d at 1007. And we can see no\\nprincipled distinction, for purposes of qualified immunity, between such a claim and Plaintiffs’\\nclaims here that they were deprived of their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights through the\\nuse of fabricated evidence. The alleged misconduct here is the use of the falsified statement to\\nprocure testimony in conformance with it—the same type of misconduct that we have previously\\nfound supported recovery for a constitutional tort, irrespective of the stage at which the fabrication\\ntainted the proceeding. See id.\\n\\n As far as clearly established law in 1975 is concerned, several months before the events at\\nissue in this case, this court stated that Mooney “made it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment right\\nto due process prohibits a knowing and deliberate use by a state of perjured evidence in order to\\nobtain a conviction.” Burks v. Egeler, 512 F.2d 221, 224 (6th Cir. 1975). More recently, we have\\ncited Brady, Pyle, and Mooney in finding that a defendant officer could not “seriously contend that\\na reasonable police officer would not know that [his] actions [including fabricating evidence] were\\ninappropriate and performed in violation of an individual’s constitutional . . . rights.” Spurlock,\\n167 F.3d at 1005–06 (also citing Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 274 (1994)). In Spurlock (a\\nmalicious-prosecution case), the defendant argued that Albright, and the Sixth Circuit case\\nexplicitly finding that malicious prosecution violated clearly established rights, had been decided\\nafter his conduct and therefore did not put him on notice. See Spurlock, 167 F.3d at 1006 n.19\\n(discussing generally Albright and Smith v. Williams, 78 F.3d 585, 1996 WL 99329 (6th Cir. 1996)\\n(unpublished table opinion)). Rejecting that argument, we stated that “the fundamental principle\\nthat an individual has a constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution . . . was clearly\\nestablished well before either of [the] cases [cited by the defendant] was decided.” Id. The\\nreasoning in Spurlock is sound, and we follow it in holding that Stoiker was on notice in 1975 that\\nit was unlawful for him to fabricate evidence.\\n\\n\\n\\n 19Although we assume for the purpose of this analysis that the allegedly fabricated evidence did not affect\\nthe proceedings through being used at trial, we again note that Vernon’s statement was used by defense counsel at\\nJackson’s trial, and a reasonable jury could find that the statement was considered by Jackson’s jury in some way.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 37\\n\\n\\n Stoiker is not entitled to qualified immunity on the fabrication-of-evidence claims.\\n\\n c. Malicious Prosecution\\n\\n Stoiker argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs “fail to identify\\na pre-1975 case that would clearly establish that a police officer could be held liable for malicious\\nprosecution where he did not actively participate in the prosecution [and] did not testify before the\\ngrand jury or at trial.” Stoiker Br. at 51. Stoiker’s argument admits of two interpretations, one of\\nwhich is possibly valid but has false premises and the other of which has true premises but is\\ninvalid.\\n\\n Stoiker might be arguing that the state of malicious prosecution law in 1975 was in flux\\nand that it was not clear at that time that he could be liable under a malicious prosecution cause of\\naction. That may be true, but it does not follow that he is protected by qualified immunity.\\nWhether a defendant is protected by qualified immunity turns not on whether the defendant was\\non notice that his actions satisfied the elements of a particular cause of action, but instead on\\nwhether the defendant was on notice that his actions violated the laws of the United States.\\nRecently, when presented with a similar argument to Stoiker’s, we responded:\\n\\n [The defendant] spends a considerable portion of his brief illustrating why\\n it is not clear that he should be liable for malicious prosecution, thus reasoning that\\n he is entitled to qualified immunity. Yet, his claim that the contours of our\\n jurisprudence concerning malicious prosecution are not entirely clear misses the\\n point. Our inquiry is whether [the defendant’s] alleged actions—arresting and\\n detaining [the plaintiff] based on false pretenses and then seeking an arrest warrant\\n based on these false statements—violated [the plaintiff’s] clearly established\\n constitutional rights. We conclude that they did.\\n\\nMiller v. Maddox, 866 F.3d 386, 395 (6th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2622 (2018). In\\nshort, “the sine qua non of the ‘clearly established’ inquiry is ‘fair warning,’” Baynes v. Cleland,\\n799 F.3d 600, 612–13 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 741), and we ask only “whether\\nit would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he\\nconfronted,” id. at 610 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001)).\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 38\\n\\n\\n Stoiker’s argument may, on the other hand, be that it was not clear in 1975 that an officer\\nwho fabricated evidence but did not testify for the prosecution had violated the laws of the United\\nStates. If this were true, he would be protected by qualified immunity. It is not, and he is not.\\n\\n For Plaintiffs’ claims to survive summary judgment, it must have been clearly established\\nthat where an officer fabricates evidence against a defendant and then withholds exculpatory\\nevidence from the prosecution, but does not testify at trial or a grand jury hearing, he is\\n“influenc[ing]” the decision to initiate the prosecution in a way that violates the defendant’s\\nconstitutional rights. Mills v. Barnard, 869 F.3d 473, 480 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n\\n Stoiker cites no case requiring testimony as an element of a § 1983 claim for malicious\\nprosecution and no case suggesting that testifying is required in order to influence the decision to\\nprosecute. To the contrary, this court held long before 1975 that if officers arrested a suspect\\nwithout a warrant (in violation of state law), and “subjected [that suspect] to fraudulent trial in a\\ncriminal case” that resulted in wrongful conviction, the officers caused the suspect “a deprivation\\nof [her] liberty without due process of law.” McShane v. Moldovan, 172 F.2d 1016, 1019 (6th Cir.\\n1949). The court in McShane made no mention of whether the officers had testified against the\\nsuspect, and with good cause: the crux of the violation is the institution of judicial processes\\nwithout probable cause, which does not require a testimonial act.\\n\\n In conjunction with the cases cited in section II(C)(2)(b), supra, McShane is sufficient to\\nhave clearly established before May 1975 that an officer need not testify in order to violate a\\ndefendant’s right to due process. That the phrase “malicious prosecution” was not used in that\\ncase to describe the cause of action is immaterial; what matters are the actions allegedly taken by\\nStoiker, not the name we give to the claim used to seek redress for those actions. Stoiker is\\ntherefore not entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious-prosecution claims.\\n\\n 3. Conclusion\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment\\nto Stoiker as to the Fourteenth Amendment claims for fabrication of evidence and for withholding\\nof exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady, and the Fourth Amendment claims for malicious\\nprosecution. But we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment as to the conspiracy claims.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 39\\n\\n\\nD. Cleveland’s Motion for Summary Judgment\\n\\n The cause of action created by § 1983 may be exercised only against a “person\\nwho . . . causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the\\njurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the\\nConstitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Supreme Court has interpreted the word “person”\\nbroadly, and certain polities, including municipalities, are considered persons for purposes of\\n§ 1983 liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).\\n\\n Although “person” has been given a wide meaning under § 1983, when the person is a\\nmunicipality, liability attaches only under a narrow set of circumstances: “A municipality may not\\nbe held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory—in other words, ‘solely because it\\nemploys a tortfeasor.’” D’Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378, 388–89 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting\\nMonell, 436 U.S. at 691). Instead, a plaintiff must show that “through its deliberate conduct, the\\nmunicipality was the ‘moving force’ behind the injury alleged.” Alman v. Reed, 703 F.3d 887,\\n903 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997)). A plaintiff\\ndoes this by showing that the municipality had a “policy or custom” that caused the violation of\\nhis rights. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694.\\n\\n There are four methods of showing the municipality had such a policy or custom: the\\nplaintiff may prove “(1) the existence of an illegal official policy or legislative enactment; (2) that\\nan official with final decision making authority ratified illegal actions; (3) the existence of a policy\\nof inadequate training or supervision; or (4) the existence of a custom of tolerance or acquiescence\\nof federal rights violations.” Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 478 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation\\nomitted).\\n\\n Plaintiffs argue that they have provided evidence sufficient to make out a Monell claim\\nunder the first theory, as GPO 19-73 caused the violation of their Brady rights, and the third theory,\\nas Cleveland’s failure to train its officers in Brady caused the violation of their Brady rights.\\nCleveland disagrees, as did the district court.20\\n\\n\\n 20Plaintiffsalso argue that they have a third Monell claim based on Cleveland’s failure to adopt an adequate\\npolicy to prevent Brady violations. The district court ruled against Plaintiffs on this theory, finding that they had not\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 40\\n\\n\\n 1. Official Policy\\n\\n “[T]o satisfy the Monell requirements a plaintiff must ‘identify the policy, connect the\\npolicy to the city itself and show that the particular injury was incurred because of the execution\\nof that policy.’” Garner v. Memphis Police Dep’t, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting\\nCoogan v. City of Wixom, 820 F.2d 170, 176 (6th Cir. 1987)).\\n\\n When proceeding under the first theory of Monell liability, under which a plaintiff must\\nshow an official policy or legislative enactment, the plaintiff must show that there were “formal\\nrules or understandings—often but not always committed to writing—that [were] intended to, and\\n[did], establish fixed plans of action to be followed under similar circumstances consistently and\\nover time.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480–81 (1986) (emphasis added).\\n\\n Plaintiffs argue that GPO 19-73 reflects just such a policy: it was a formal rule; it was\\npromulgated by Cleveland; and it was illegal because it authorized Brady violations. Cleveland\\nagrees that GPO 19-73 was a policy and that it was promulgated by Cleveland but argues that GPO\\n19-73 is consistent with Brady and, therefore, could not cause Brady violations.21\\n\\n GPO 19-73 read in pertinent part as follows:\\n\\n TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT\\n In a letter to this Department, County Prosecutor John T. Corrigan has defined the\\n legal rights of defense attorneys and courts to statements, reports and other items\\n in criminal cases. His letter, as a part of this order, shall be considered an integral\\n\\n\\nestablished that Cleveland had failed to adopt adequate policies to train officers in Brady’s requirements. Jackson v.\\nCity of Cleveland, CASE NO. 1:15CV989, 2017 WL 3336607, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017). We decline to analyze\\nthis theory separately. Plaintiffs cite no Sixth Circuit or Supreme Court case in support of their theory that they have\\na Monell claim—separate from their failure-to-train claim—based on Cleveland’s unconstitutional failure to adopt a\\npolicy. Instead, the relevant cases they cite are failure-to-train cases. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 391\\n(1989); Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 755 (6th Cir. 2006); Miller v. Calhoun Cty., 408 F.3d 803, 816–\\n17 (6th Cir. 2005). That makes sense: the harm alleged and the analysis required under the failure-to-train theory are\\nfunctionally indistinguishable from the harm Plaintiffs allege and the analysis they wish us to conduct under the\\nfailure-to-adopt-a-policy theory. Indeed, the district court stated that to prevail on their failure-to-adopt theory,\\nPlaintiffs needed to show Cleveland was deliberately indifferent to the high likelihood of violations in the absence of\\na policy. See Jackson, 2017 WL 3336607, at *4 (citing Miller, 408 F.3d at 816–17). As we discuss below, Plaintiffs\\nmust make the same showing for their failure-to-train claim.\\n 21Cleveland also argues that Plaintiffs cannot show that GPO 19-73 caused any Brady violations because\\nthey cannot demonstrate any Brady violations to begin with. As discussed in section II(C)(1)(a), supra, that argument\\nis unavailing.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 41\\n\\n\\n part of criminal case preparations procedures and all members shall comply with\\n its provisions.\\n\\nR. 101-7, PageID 1630.\\n\\n The letter from the County Prosecutor, incorporated into GPO 19-73, read in pertinent part\\nas follows:\\n\\n The Ohio Supreme Court has recently promulgated Criminal Rules of\\n Procedure . . . . Particularly, Rule 16 is going to be the concern of police\\n departments and prosecutors.\\n ....\\n NO POLICE DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED OR SHALL GIVE TO DEFENSE\\n COUNSEL AND/OR ANY COURT ANY RECORD, PAPER, STATEMENT,\\n REPORT OR TANGIBLE OBJECT OF A CRIMINAL CASE.\\n Under proper circumstances under this rule, by application to the Prosecuting\\n Attorney and/or the court, the defense counsel may be entitled to the following:\\n\\n 1. Statement of a defendant or co-defendant, written, recorded, or a\\n summary of an oral statement.\\n 2. Defendant’s prior felony record.\\n 3. Inspection of [physical evidence] material to the preparation of the\\n defense or intended for use by the Prosecuting Attorney as evidence.\\n 4. Reports of results of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests\\n or experiments.\\n 5. Names and addresses of witnesses.\\n 6. Evidence favorable to the defendant.\\n\\n EXCEPTION TO THE FOREGOING:\\n The foregoing does not authorize the discovery or the inspection of reports,\\n memoranda, or other internal documents made by the Prosecuting Attorney or his\\n agents (police departments are his agents) in connection with the investigation or\\n prosecution of the case, or of statements made by witnesses or prospective witnesses\\n to state agents.\\n\\nId. (emphases added).\\n\\n Plaintiffs argue that GPO 19-73 is appropriately read as providing that defendants are\\ngenerally entitled to favorable evidence, but that the entitlement does not apply if the favorable\\nevidence is in the form of witness statements. The individual Defendants were therefore acting in\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 42\\n\\n\\nconformance with GPO 19-73 when they failed to turn over to prosecutors Vernon’s un-coerced,\\nexculpatory statement that he had not seen the shooting, even though this withholding violated\\nPlaintiffs’ Brady rights.\\n\\n In rebuttal, Cleveland argues, first, that the language of GPO 19-73 did not permit officers\\nto withhold exculpatory evidence from prosecutors, and, second, that even if it did, it must be read\\nin conjunction with other rules by which officers were bound in order to determine whether\\nCleveland had a policy of permitting the withholding of exculpatory evidence from prosecutors.\\n\\n Because a city may be liable under Monell for a policy of permitting constitutional\\nviolations regardless of whether the policy is written, see Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 480–81, we ask\\nwhether GPO 19-73 and the other rules were inconsistent with a policy of withholding evidence\\nin violation of Brady. If they were not inconsistent, then a genuine issue of material fact exists as\\nto whether Cleveland had such a policy, and summary judgment was improper on Plaintiffs’ first\\nMonell theory.\\n\\n a. The Text of GPO 19-73\\n\\n Cleveland notes that the only language in GPO 19-73 discussing officers’ disclosure\\nobligations simply made it clear that they were not permitted to give any physical evidence directly\\nto a defendant; it did not say officers were permitted to withhold exculpatory evidence from\\nprosecutors. Under this reading of GPO 19-73, the purpose of the order was to ensure that officers\\ndid not give evidence directly to defendants and, perhaps as something of an addendum, let officers\\nknow what prosecutors might have to do with the evidence officers gave them. The section\\npermitting disclosure of exculpatory witness statements, after all, argues Cleveland, was prefaced\\nby the statement that “by application to the Prosecuting Attorney and/or the court, the defense\\ncounsel may be entitled” to various evidence, and that language appears to concern the interaction\\nbetween prosecutors and defendants, not officers and prosecutors.\\n\\n Cleveland’s interpretation of GPO 19-73 may be plausible, but it is not the only reasonable\\ninterpretation. The incorporated letter from the County Prosecutor informed Cleveland police\\nofficers that “Rule 16 is going to be the concern of police departments and prosecutors,” not just\\nprosecutors. (emphasis added). The incorporated letter recreated in part the text of Rule 16, which\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 43\\n\\n\\ndealt only with what sorts of evidence required disclosure, not with who would do the disclosing.\\nThat GPO 19-73 told officers that Rule 16 was their concern and provided the text of that Rule,\\nwhich described which evidence must be disclosed, could suggest that GPO 19-73 was\\npromulgated for the purpose of ensuring officers knew what particular evidence they had to\\ndisclose to prosecutors so that the prosecutors could then disclose that evidence to the defense.\\nUnder this reading, GPO 19-73 did more than simply inform officers that they should not give\\nevidence directly to defendants; it also served as the directive to officers as to what evidence they\\nshould, and should not, give to prosecutors. Particular to the last point, the “EXCEPTION TO\\nTHE FOREGOING” provision could be read to direct officers not to turn over to prosecutors the\\ndocuments described in that provision, which included “statements made by witnesses or\\nprospective witnesses to state agents.”\\n\\n Therefore, one reasonable reading of GPO 19-73 is that it (1) spoke to police officers about\\ntheir disclosure obligations and (2) informed them that they did not need to disclose exculpatory\\nwitness statements to the Prosecutor’s Office. Because GPO 19-73 can be read as consistent with\\na policy of not disclosing exculpatory witness statements, we turn to the other written rules to see\\nwhether any of those foreclosed such a policy.\\n\\n b. Other Rules\\n\\n Cleveland’s second argument for why a reasonable jury could not read GPO 19-73 as\\nembodying a policy of allowing officers to withhold exculpatory witness statements from\\nprosecutors is stronger, but ultimately unavailing. Instead of looking at GPO 19-73 in a vacuum,\\nCleveland urges us to consider the text of GPO 19-73 in the context of other rules and regulations.\\nThese other sources fall into two groups: sections of the Division of Police’s Manual of Rules and\\nthe full text of Rule 16.\\n\\n i. The Manual\\n\\n The Manual contained a number of rules that were applicable to all Cleveland police\\nofficers in 1975. Cleveland points to four rules as requiring, when read in conjunction with GPO\\n19-73, that officers disclose exculpatory witness statements to prosecutors. While all laudable,\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 44\\n\\n\\neach of these policies can, however, reasonably be interpreted as consistent with a reading of GPO\\n19-73 that permitted officers to withhold exculpatory witness statements from prosecutors.\\n\\n Rule 14\\n Case Preparation and Fraud Unit\\n ....\\n (2) The officer in charge shall cause statements to be taken from persons\\n brought to the Unit in the course of criminal investigations; and shall see that such\\n statements are properly filed and preserved. These statements shall be available\\n only to the officers and members of the Division of Police who are interested in the\\n presentation of a particular case, to the office of the County Prosecutor or the Law\\n Department of the City of Cleveland. Under no circumstances shall they be given\\n or exhibited to any other person without the written consent of the Chief of Police.\\nR. 102-2, PageID 1910–11.\\n\\n Rule 14 only applied to statements given by persons brought to the Case Preparation and\\nFraud Unit, and there was no requirement that all witnesses be brought to that unit when giving a\\nstatement.22 Nor did it require officers to affirmatively disclose exculpatory statements to\\nprosecutors; it required only that detectives make statements available. This reading is consistent\\nwith testimony that it was the practice of Cleveland detectives to withhold evidence not contained\\nin arrest reports, witness forms, or written statements unless it was specifically requested by\\nprosecutors.\\n\\n Rule 66 [No Title]\\n (1) Officers and members prosecuting persons charged with a crime shall\\n thoroughly familiarize themselves with all of the facts and details concerning such\\n case, so that all of the evidence may be properly presented to the court.\\n\\nId. at PageID 1941.\\n\\n Rule 66 said nothing about disclosure of evidence to prosecutors, much less exculpatory\\nevidence. More importantly, it only required familiarity with the facts and details of a case insofar\\nas such familiarity was required to “properly present” those facts to a court. As discussed above,\\nGPO 19-73 can reasonably be interpreted as not requiring officers to disclose exculpatory witness\\n\\n\\n\\n 22Vernon does not appear to have been brought to the Case Preparation and Fraud Unit.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 45\\n\\n\\nstatements to prosecutors for disclosure in turn to defendants (or, presumably, to courts). Read in\\nconjunction with GPO 19-73, then, Rule 66 can reasonably be interpreted as not applying to\\nexculpatory witness statements.\\n\\n Rule 77 [No Title]\\n (1) Officers and members shall report on all matters referred to or investigated\\n by them. Such reports may be either verbal or written, as the officer in charge may\\n direct.\\n (2) They shall, before reporting off duty, make such written reports as may be\\n required on all matters coming to their attention or assigned to them for\\n investigation. If the investigation has not been completed before he reports [sic]\\n off duty, he shall make a report stating the progress made.\\n (3) He shall address his written reports to his superior officer and shall sign the\\n reports, giving his full name and rank, title or number. When required, such reports\\n shall be examined and signed by a superior officer. Written reports shall be\\n forwarded to the commanding officer.\\n\\nId. at PageID 1945–46.\\n\\n Rule 77 required that officers make reports concerning their cases. It did not require that\\nsuch reports contain all exculpatory information that they may have learned. Importantly, it did\\nnot require that any reports be disclosed to prosecutors, and it allowed reports to be made verbally\\nto a superior officer, a method well suited to the withholding of information from prosecutors.\\n\\n Rule 78 [No Title]\\n Written and verbal reports, testimony in court and conversation of any kind\\n affecting the Division of Police, its officers, members, employees or persons under\\n its jurisdiction shall be truthful and unbiased.\\n\\nId. at PageID 1946.\\n\\n Even read in conjunction with GPO 19-73 and the other rules discussed herein, the\\nlimitations of Rule 78 render it incapable of carrying the weight with which Cleveland burdens it.\\nIt required not that all reports be complete but only that they be truthful and unbiased. 23 Nor did\\n\\n\\n 23Consider, for example, two officers who have coerced a witness into making what they believe to be a\\ntruthful statement: a report detailing that statement but excluding the coercion would comport with Rule 78. More\\ninsidiously, consider two officers who have coerced a witness into making a statement that they know to be false and\\nwho file a report stating that the witness made that statement. That report would be both true and unbiased and\\ntherefore consistent with Rule 78: the witness did, after all, make the (false) statement contained in the report.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 46\\n\\n\\nit require that any reports, which may have been made verbally to a superior officer, be disclosed\\nto prosecutors.\\n\\n None of the rules contained within the Manual, taken individually or collectively, are\\ninconsistent with an interpretation of GPO 19-73 that permits officers to withhold exculpatory\\ninformation from prosecutors. These rules can be read by a reasonable jury as consistent with a\\npolicy of permitting the withholding of exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady.\\n\\n ii. Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 16\\n\\n Cleveland also argues that the full text of Rule 16 made clear that defendants were entitled\\nto all exculpatory evidence, including witness statements. The version of Rule 16 in force in 1975\\nread in pertinent part as follows:\\n\\n (B) Disclosure of evidence by the prosecuting attorney.\\n (1) Information subject to disclosure.\\n ....\\n (f) Disclosure of evidence favorable to defendant.\\n [description of exculpatory evidence]\\n (g) In camera inspection of witness’ [sic] statement.\\n [description of procedure for in camera inspection of witness\\n statements]\\n (2) Information not subject to disclosure.\\n Except as provided in subsections (B)(1)(a), (b), (d), (f), and (g), this\\n rule does not authorize the discovery or inspection of reports,\\n memoranda, or other internal documents made by the prosecuting\\n attorney or his agents in connection with the investigation or\\n prosecution of the case, or of statements made by witnesses or\\n prospective witnesses to state agents.\\n\\nProposed Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, 46 Ohio BAR 817, 849–52 (1973) (emphases\\nadded).\\n\\n Unlike GPO 19-73 and the rules in the Manual, Rule 16 made it quite clear that defendants\\nwere entitled to exculpatory witness reports. Rule 16(B)(2) excepted witness statements from the\\ngeneral disclosure requirements, using language almost identical to that used in GPO 19-73.\\nUnlike GPO 19-73, however, Rule 16(B)(2) included an additional clause, excepting exculpatory\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 47\\n\\n\\nwitness statements from the exception for witness statements generally. Rule 16(B)(2) thereby\\nplaced exculpatory witness statements back into the universe of mandatory disclosure. As a result,\\nthe full text of Rule 16 made it clear that prosecutors were obligated to disclose all exculpatory\\nwitness statements to defendants.\\n\\n This fact does not, however, save Cleveland, at least not at this stage of the litigation.\\nCleveland has provided no evidence that Cleveland required that its officers follow the official\\nversion of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, that those rules were followed by Cleveland\\nofficers, or that Cleveland officers were even aware of those rules. There is evidence, of course,\\nthat Cleveland officers were bound by Rule 16: GPO 19-73 can reasonably be interpreted as\\ndirecting that Cleveland officers follow the requirements of Rule 16. But GPO 19-73 could be\\nread as directing Cleveland officers to follow a modified version of Rule 16—the version included\\nin GPO 19-73.24\\n\\n And that version differed in at least one material way from the official Rule 16. Both GPO\\n19-73 and the official Rule 16 included a paragraph excepting witness statements from the general\\ndisclosure requirements. But although, as mentioned, that paragraph in the official Rule 16\\ncontained an additional clause in paragraph (B)(2) excepting (by reference to the requirements of\\n(B)(1)(f) and (g)) exculpatory witness statements from that exception—and the paragraph in the\\nofficial Rule thereby required that exculpatory witness statements be disclosed—the version of\\nRule 16 in GPO 19-73 omitted the clause in that paragraph excepting exculpatory witness\\nstatements. The paragraph in the version of Rule 16 included in GPO 19-73 merely provided:\\n\\n The foregoing [disclosure requirements] do[] not authorize the discovery or\\n inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal documents made by the\\n Prosecuting Attorney or his agents (police departments are his agents) in connection\\n with the investigation or prosecution of the case, or of statements made by\\n witnesses or prospective witnesses to state agents.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24GPO 19-73 did not indicate that the version of Rule 16 it included was in any way different from the official\\nRule 16 or suggest that officers either consult the official text of Rule 16 or consult prosecutors as to the duties of\\nofficers or prosecutors under Rule 16.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 48\\n\\n\\nR. 101-7, PageID 1630. It was this modified version of Rule 16—the one that could plausibly be\\ninterpreted as allowing the withholding of exculpatory witness statements—by which a reasonable\\njury could find Cleveland officers were bound.\\n\\n c. Conclusion\\n\\n GPO 19-73 and the rules in Cleveland’s police manual, read together, could be understood\\nto authorize Cleveland officers to withhold exculpatory witness statements from prosecutors. It is\\nfor a jury to consider GPO 19-73 and the rules in the Manual in light of Cleveland’s actual practices\\nand determine whether Cleveland had a policy of permitting Brady violations. Because Cleveland\\ndoes not contest that it promulgated GPO 19-73 or that the individual Defendants were acting in\\nconformance with GPO 19-73 when they withheld Vernon’s exculpatory statements, a reasonable\\njury could find Cleveland liable under Monell. See Garner, 8 F.3d at 364–65.\\n\\n Because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Cleveland had a policy of\\npermitting Brady violations, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Cleveland on\\nPlaintiffs’ first Monell theory was improper.\\n\\n 2. Failure to Train\\n\\n Plaintiffs also argue that in 1975, Cleveland had “a policy of inadequate training or\\nsupervision” of its officers as to their obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady.\\nBurgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 478 (6th Cir. 2013).\\n\\n In order to show that a municipality is liable for a failure to train its employees, a plaintiff\\n“must establish that: 1) the City’s training program was inadequate for the tasks that officers must\\nperform; 2) the inadequacy was the result of the City’s deliberate indifference; and 3) the\\ninadequacy was closely related to or actually caused the injury.” Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d\\n461, 469 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1046 (6th Cir. 1992)).\\n\\n Cleveland argues that Plaintiffs lack evidence sufficient for a jury to find that either of the\\nfirst two requirements is met. We address each requirement in turn.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 49\\n\\n\\n a. Adequacy of Cleveland’s Brady Training\\n\\n When determining whether a municipality has adequately trained its employees,\\n“the focus must be on adequacy of the training program in relation to the tasks the particular\\nofficers must perform.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 (1989).\\n\\n Plaintiffs argue that Cleveland’s training program was deficient in that it failed to train\\nofficers in their Brady obligations and that, to the degree that those officers received training in\\nthe disclosure of evidence to prosecutors, they were trained to withhold exculpatory evidence.\\nCleveland disagrees, citing deposition testimony to show that officers received official training in\\ntheir disclosure obligations as well as unofficial on-the-job training in their disclosure obligations.\\nThe district court agreed with Cleveland.\\n\\n It is undisputed that Cleveland officers received, and were trained in, the Manual. But as\\ndiscussed in section II(D)(1)(b)(i), supra, those rules could be read as insufficient to inform\\nofficers of their disclosure obligations, as none of the rules in the Manual explicitly mandated\\ndisclosure of exculpatory witness statements to prosecutors. The only rule from the Manual that\\ncame close to requiring disclosure of witness statements to prosecutors was Rule 14, which applied\\nonly to witness statements made to the Case Preparation and Fraud Unit, and it only required that\\nthose statements be available to prosecutors, not that they be proactively disclosed.\\n\\n Cleveland presents deposition testimony that “in the police academy . . . [y]ou were told to\\ngive [exculpatory evidence] to . . . a prosecutor” and that “Cleveland police officers are trained\\nand instructed to turn over the entire product of their investigation to the prosecutor.” R. 103,\\nPageID 3664, 3672.\\n\\n Cleveland also presents evidence that officers were trained on the job to disclose evidence.\\nOne officer testified that although the rule was not always followed, “the rule was, you should turn\\nover all evidence acquired in an investigation to the prosecution.” R. 104, PageID 3949–50. That\\nofficer also testified:\\n\\n Police officers that conduct interviews are instructed to write down the statement\\n as close to what the witness said as possible, whether it is good or bad. But it is\\n part of what was said, and it needs to be, the entire thing needs to be presented to\\n the prosecutor, the entire thing, not parts of it, the entire thing.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 50\\n\\n\\nId. at PageID 3972.\\n\\n But Plaintiffs provide testimony that conflicts with Cleveland’s account of the training\\nreceived, both in the academy and on the job. One former officer testified that he was not “taught\\nanything at police academy about police officers’ obligation to disclose Brady evidence” and that\\nhe did not remember having “ever attend[ed] any training concerning police officers’ obligation\\nto disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.” R. 114-20, PageID 5127–29.\\n\\n Another former officer testified that he could not recall having ever “attend[ed] any course,\\nor receive[d] any training in which [he] learned that officers have an obligation to disclose\\nexculpatory evidence to criminal defendants or prosecutors.” R. 114-35, PageID 5492–93.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 51\\n\\n\\n A third former officer testified, “As far as training, I would have to say no” training was\\nprovided teaching officers they were required “to place any witness statements in the official file\\nor otherwise make them available to criminal defendants, defense counsels, and prosecutors.”\\nR. 102, PageID 1776. He also testified that there was “[n]o specific training” requiring police\\ndetectives “to disclose exculpatory evidence.” Id. at PageID 1777.\\n\\n The district court interpreted these statements as indicating only that no official training\\nhad been provided, not that no on-the-job training had been provided. Jackson v. City of Cleveland,\\nCASE NO. 1:15CV989, 2017 WL 3336607, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017). We think this a\\ncramped interpretation of these statements. One officer testified that he could not recall having\\n“receive[d] any training in which [he] learned that officers have an obligation to disclose\\nexculpatory evidence.” (emphasis added). Another testified that he received “no [training] to place\\nany witness statements in the official file.” (emphasis added). A reasonable jury could interpret\\nthis testimony as indicating that officers received no training, on-the-job or otherwise, in their\\nBrady obligations generally or in their obligation to provide witness statements to prosecutors.\\n\\n There is therefore a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Cleveland’s training of its\\nofficers in their disclosure obligations was sufficient, and summary judgment was inappropriate\\nas to this issue. See Burgess, 735 F.3d at 471.\\n\\n b. Cleveland’s Deliberate Indifference\\n\\n “[D]eliberate indifference is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a municipal\\nactor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action.” Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown,\\n520 U.S. 397, 410 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In other words, the risk of a\\nconstitutional violation arising as a result of the inadequacies in the municipal policy must be\\n‘plainly obvious.’” Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 752 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Bd.\\nof Cty. Comm’rs, 520 U.S. at 412).\\n\\n A plaintiff may meet this standard by showing either (1) “prior instances of\\nunconstitutional conduct demonstrating that the City had notice that the training was deficient and\\nlikely to cause injury but ignored it” or (2) “evidence of a single violation of federal rights,\\naccompanied by a showing that the City had failed to train its employees to handle recurring\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 52\\n\\n\\nsituations presenting an obvious potential for such a violation.” Campbell v. City of Springboro,\\n700 F.3d 779, 794 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Plinton v. Cty. of Summit, 540 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir.\\n2008)).\\n\\n Plaintiffs do not contend that they can show Cleveland’s failure to train was deliberately\\nindifferent via the first method.25 Instead, Plaintiffs argue that they satisfy the second method of\\nshowing deliberate indifference because the “likelihood that the situation [i.e., a situation requiring\\npolice to handle exculpatory evidence] will recur and the predictability that an officer lacking\\nspecific tools to handle that situation will violate citizens’ rights” mean that failing to train officers\\nin their disclosure obligations demonstrates deliberate indifference to the “highly predictable\\nconsequence” that untrained officers will violate Brady. Jackson Br. at 65 (quoting Bd. of Cty.\\nComm’rs, 520 U.S. at 409–10).\\n\\n Plaintiffs cite Gregory in support of their conclusion. In Gregory, the plaintiff presented\\nevidence that the defendant municipality had failed to train its officers in the handling of\\nexculpatory evidence. See 444 F.3d at 753–54. This court reversed a grant of summary judgment\\nto the municipality, holding that a “custom of failing to train its officers on the handling of\\nexculpatory materials is sufficient to establish the requisite fault on the part of the [municipality]”\\nfor a deliberate-indifference claim. Id. at 754 (citing Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 520 U.S. at 407).\\n\\n Cleveland attempts to distinguish Gregory on the ground that in Gregory, the plaintiff had\\npresented evidence sufficient for a jury to find that the defendant municipality had failed to train\\nits officers, while in this case, Cleveland argues that the “undisputed evidence in the record\\nestablishes that the detectives in the City’s Homicide Detective Bureau received on-the-job\\ntraining about the evidence that they were required to turn over to the prosecutor.” Cleveland Br.\\nat 48. But, as discussed above, the evidence is not undisputed. Plaintiffs have provided testimony\\nsufficient for a jury to find that Cleveland did not in fact train its officers in their disclosure\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 25Findingthat Plaintiffs had not shown Cleveland provided inadequate training to its officers, the district\\ncourt did not address whether Plaintiffs could make out the deliberate-indifference element by either method. See\\nJackson, 2017 WL 3336607, at *5.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 53\\n\\n\\nobligations. Gregory therefore controls, and there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to\\nfind that Cleveland was deliberately indifferent to the risk of Brady violations.\\n\\n 3. Conclusion\\n\\n Plaintiffs having shown that there are genuine issues of material fact both as to whether\\nCleveland had an official policy of permitting the withholding of exculpatory witness statements\\nfrom prosecutors and as to whether Cleveland had a policy of failing to train its officers in their\\ndisclosure obligations, summary judgment was inappropriate on the Monell claims. See Burgess,\\n735 F.3d at 471.26 We therefore REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to\\nCleveland as to those claims.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n In 1940, then-Attorney General Robert H. Jackson admonished prosecutors: “Your\\npositions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and\\nvigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically\\nloses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.” 27 In the present case, by contrast, one\\nlaw-enforcement officer testified that “winning the case was what it was all about. It wasn’t about\\nwhat was fair, it wasn’t about what was honest, it was about winning.” R. 104, PageID 3967–68.\\nIf that sentiment explains the circumstances of Plaintiffs’ convictions, then those convictions were\\nthe result of a process that was the very antithesis of Jackson’s famous admonition.\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to\\nStoiker as to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for conspiracy to fabricate evidence and withhold\\nexculpatory evidence. We REVERSE and REMAND the district court’s (1) judgment on the\\npleadings for Cleveland as to Plaintiffs’ indemnification claims; (2) denial of Plaintiffs’ motions\\nto amend their complaints to substitute the administrator of the estates of the deceased Defendants\\nas a party in their place; (3) grant of summary judgment to Stoiker as to the § 1983 claims for\\n\\n\\n 26A failure-to-train claim under Monell also requires showing that the failure to train “was closely related to\\nor actually caused [Plaintiffs’] injury,” Ciminillo, 434 F.3d at 469, but Cleveland does not dispute that element.\\n 27Robert H. Jackson, Attorney Gen. of the U.S., Address at the Second Annual Conference of United States\\nAttorneys: The Federal Prosecutor (Apr. 1, 1940).\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 54\\n\\n\\nwithholding of exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady, fabrication of evidence, and malicious\\nprosecution; and (4) grant of summary judgment to Cleveland as to the Monell claims.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4398647/\", \"author_raw\": \"No. 1:15-cv-00989-Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BUSH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"ROGERS"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BUSH"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621394/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Ricky JACKSON (17-3840); Kwame Ajamu, Fka Ronnie Bridgeman, and Wiley Edward Bridgeman (17-3843), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND; Jerold Englehart; Karen Lamendola, Guardian Ad Litem on Behalf of Frank Stoiker; Estate of Eugene Terpay, Administrator; Estate of James T. Farmer, Administrator; Estate of John Staimpel, Administrator, Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-20\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0095p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n RICKY JACKSON (17-3840); KWAME AJAMU, fka ┐\n Ronnie Bridgeman, and WILEY EDWARD BRIDGEMAN │\n (17-3843), │\n Plaintiffs-Appellants, │\n │\n > Nos. 17-3840/3843\n v. │\n │\n │\n CITY OF CLEVELAND; JEROLD ENGLEHART; KAREN │\n LAMENDOLA, Guardian Ad Litem on behalf of Frank │\n Stoiker; ESTATE OF EUGENE TERPAY, Administrator; │\n ESTATE OF JAMES T. FARMER, Administrator; ESTATE │\n OF JOHN STAIMPEL, Administrator,\n │\n Defendants-Appellees. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\n No. 1:15-cv-00989—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.\n\n Argued: June 14, 2018\n\n Decided and Filed: May 20, 2019\n\n Before: ROGERS and BUSH, Circuit Judges.*\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Elizabeth C. Wang, LOEVY & LOEVY, Boulder, Colorado, for all Appellants.\nWilliam M. Menzalora, CITY OF CLEVELAND, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee City of\nCleveland. Stephen W. Funk, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA, Akron, Ohio, for Appellees Karen\nLamendola and the Estates of Eugene Terpay, James Farmer, and John Staimpel. ON BRIEF:\nElizabeth C. Wang, LOEVY & LOEVY, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellant Ricky Jackson. Terry\nH. Gilbert, Jacqueline C. Greene, FRIEDMAN & GILBERT, Cleveland, Ohio, David E. Mills,\n\n *The Honorable Damon J. Keith, United States Circuit Judge, was a member of the original panel but passed\naway on April 28, 2019 and did not participate in the panel’s decision on rehearing.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 2\n\n\nTHE MILLS LAW OFFICE LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants Kwame Ajamu and Wiley\nBridgeman. William M. Menzalora, CITY OF CLEVELAND, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee City\nof Cleveland. Stephen W. Funk, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA, Akron, Ohio, for Appellees\nKaren Lamendola and the Estates of Eugene Terpay, James Farmer, and John Staimpel.\n\n BUSH, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which ROGERS, J., joined.\n ________________________\n\n AMENDED OPINION\n ________________________\n\n JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Appellants Ricky Jackson, Wiley Bridgeman, and Kwame\nAjamu served a long time in prison for a crime they did not commit. For Jackson, it was thirty-\nnine years; for Bridgeman, thirty-seven years; for Ajamu, twenty-five years. They each spent close\nto two and a half of those years on death row.\n\n These men cannot get back any of the time they lost or erase the things they experienced.\nThe best they can hope for is a remedy of damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio law. This\nappeal concerns whether their complaints state sufficient facts for certain claims not to be\ndismissed and whether the men have presented enough evidence for other claims to overcome\nsummary judgment.\n\n In 1975, Jackson, Ajamu, and Bridgeman were convicted of murder. Their convictions\nwere based largely on the purportedly eyewitness testimony of Edward Vernon, who then was\nthirteen years old. In 2014, nearly forty years later, Vernon recanted, disclosing that police officers\nhad coerced him into testifying falsely. Vernon’s recantation led to the overturning of appellants’\nconvictions.\n\n The exonerated men filed suit in the Northern District of Ohio, alleging § 1983 claims\nbased on alleged violations of their constitutional rights by the officers and the City of Cleveland\n(“Cleveland”), along with state-law claims for indemnification against Cleveland. This appeal\nrequires us to untangle a knot of legal issues surrounding the district court’s grant of appellees’\nmotions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment and its denial of appellants’\nmotions to amend their complaints. We AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment\nas to the § 1983 claims based on conspiracy, but we REVERSE and REMAND the district court’s\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 3\n\n\n(1) judgment on the pleadings as to the indemnification claims; (2) denial of appellants’ motions\nto amend their complaints to substitute the administrator of the estates of the deceased officers as\na party in their place; (3) summary judgment as to § 1983 claims arising from violations of Brady\nv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), fabrication of evidence, and malicious prosecution; and (4)\nsummary judgment as to claims against Cleveland based on Monell v. Department of Social\nServices, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\nA. Factual Background\n\n As befits this stage of the litigation, we recite the relevant facts in the light most favorable\nto the plaintiffs, who are appellants here. See Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d 461, 464 (6th Cir.\n2006).\n\n In 1973, the Cleveland Division of Police promulgated General Police Order 19-73 (“GPO\n19-73”), entitled “PRETRIAL DISCOVERY RIGHTS OF DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND\nCOURTS IN CRIMINAL CASES.” R. 101-7, PageID 1630.1 GPO 19-73 provided that “defense\ncounsel may be entitled” to several types of evidence, including “[e]vidence favorable to the\ndefendant.” Id. But it also included a section entitled “EXCEPTION TO THE FOREGOING,”\nwhich contained the following provision: “The foregoing does not authorize the discovery or the\ninspection of . . . statements made by witnesses or prospective witnesses to state agents.” Id. The\nManual of Rules used by the Division of Police (the “Manual”) did not otherwise instruct officers\nin handling potentially exculpatory information and did not mention Brady, as the Manual’s last\nupdate had occurred before Brady was decided.\n\n As described later in this opinion, some testimony suggests that Cleveland police officers\nmay have received no formal training in their Brady obligations, and may not have known that\nBrady imposed any obligations upon them.\n\n\n\n\n 1All record citations are citations to the record in No. 17-3840 (Jackson’s suit) unless otherwise indicated.\nCitations to the record in Ajamu and Bridgeman’s suit will be prefaced by “No. 17-3843.”\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 4\n\n\n Deposition testimony also reveals that, regardless of how officers understood their\nobligations under Brady, violations of those obligations were common. Although it was generally\nunderstood that anything in a detective’s file that was pertinent to a case “should go to the\nprosecutor,” it was up to individual officers whether they followed this policy, and they did not\nalways do so. R. 103, PageID 3794. The general practice at the time, followed in “every case,”\nwas for detectives to provide prosecutors with only “arrest reports, witness forms and written\nstatements taken by the Statement Unit,” and “photos,” while omitting to turn over other evidence,\nincluding potentially exculpatory evidence, unless it was specifically requested by the prosecutor.\nId. at PageID 3672–75. Deposition testimony describes this as a “practice,” which “happened\nmore than it should,” of “detectives not [turning] over all the evidence to prosecutors.” R. 104,\nPageID 3970.\n\n Some detectives took a more proactive role by “manipulating the evidence” before giving\nit to prosecutors. Id. at PageID 3967. This was done, one officer testified, “because winning the\ncase was what it was all about. It wasn’t about what was fair, it wasn’t about what was honest, it\nwas about winning.” Id. at PageID 3967–68.\n\n Against this backdrop of evidence of incomplete Brady knowledge and frequent Brady\nviolations, the record tells the following story.\n\n On May 19, 1975, Edward Vernon, then twelve years old, was riding the bus home from\nschool when he heard two gunshots. Being twelve, Vernon exited the bus at the earliest\nopportunity and ran to where he believed the shots originated. Coming upon the scene, Vernon\nfound a gunshot victim, but nothing to indicate who was responsible for the shooting. After police\nhad secured the area, Vernon left and met up with a friend who told Vernon that the perpetrators\nwere Ricky Jackson, Kwame Ajamu (then known as Ronnie Bridgeman), and Wiley Bridgeman\n(collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Vernon, a civic-minded youth, returned to the crime scene and told an\nofficer that he knew who had committed the shooting, whereupon the officer recorded Vernon’s\ncontact information.\n\n The next day, Detectives Eugene Terpay and James Farmer went to Vernon’s house and\nrequested that he go down to the station to give a statement. As Vernon later recounted, when his\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 5\n\n\nmother asked to accompany him to the station, the officers “told her, no, he’ll be all right, he’ll be\nall right.” R. 99-1, PageID 1183. At the station, Vernon told Terpay and Farmer that Plaintiffs\nhad committed the shooting and gave their descriptions, which he was able to do because he knew\nthem from the neighborhood. The following day, Terpay and Farmer again went to Vernon’s\nhouse and asked him for Plaintiffs’ addresses.\n\n Detective John Staimpel, along with his partner Frank Stoiker, was working the case with\nTerpay and Farmer. On May 25, Staimpel and another detective, whose name Vernon cannot\nremember, picked Vernon up at his house to bring him to a line-up. Vernon’s mother again asked\nto accompany him, and Vernon recalls the detectives saying, “[N]o, he’ll be all right. We’ll bring\nhim back after the lineup.” Id. at PageID 1189. The detectives brought Vernon to the line-up and,\nas he recollects, asked him if “I see anybody that I recognize up there,” which Vernon interpreted\nas asking whether he had seen anyone in the line-up commit the shooting. Id. at PageID 1190.\nVernon replied that he had not. Ricky Jackson and Wiley Bridgeman, who had been arrested\nearlier in the day, were in that line-up. From Vernon’s point of view, he had been forthright up\nuntil this point: he had honestly told the detectives that (he thought) he knew who had committed\nthe crime, but he had never said that he had actually witnessed the crime, and so when he was\nasked at the line-up whether he saw anyone whom he had seen commit the crime, he said no.\n\n The two detectives then brought Vernon into a room, whereupon Staimpel accused Vernon\nof lying, threatened to send his parents to jail for perjury, banged on a table, and used racial\npejoratives to describe Vernon. (Vernon and Plaintiffs are African-Americans.) After Vernon\nbegan to cry, Staimpel said, “[W]e’ll fix it,” and the detectives left the room. Id. at PageID 1191.\nWhen the detectives returned, they gave Vernon a piece of paper, explained to him that it said he\nhad failed to identify Jackson and Bridgeman in the line-up because he had been scared of their\nretaliating, and told Vernon to sign it, which Vernon did.\n\n Stoiker signed a police report dated May 25, 1975, which described Stoiker and Staimpel’s\npicking Vernon up and taking him to the line-up, Vernon’s failing to identify Jackson and\nBridgeman, and Vernon’s explaining this failure as due to his being “very afraid” of Plaintiffs. R.\n114-19, PageID 5113.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 6\n\n\n The day after the line-up, Terpay and Farmer again spoke with Vernon. The detectives\nbrought Vernon to the station, where he told them that he had not witnessed the crime and that he\nhad never said that he had witnessed the crime. Terpay was wroth, yelling at Vernon and accusing\nhim of having lied when he had gone to the line-up and said “that this is not them.” R. 99-1,\nPageID 1194. Terpay threatened to send Vernon’s parents to jail for perjury, and Vernon agreed\nto testify that he had seen Plaintiffs commit the crime.\n\n A police report dated May 28, 1975 indicates that Stoiker and Staimpel “[c]onsulted with\n[the prosecutor] who issued papers charging [Plaintiffs] with [homicide].” R. 114-28, PageID\n5321.\n\n Prior to Jackson’s trial, Terpay coached Vernon regarding his testimony and afterwards\nreviewed the trial transcript with Vernon to ensure that his testimony in the trials of Bridgeman\nand Ajamu was consistent.\n\n Plaintiffs were convicted at separate trials. They were sentenced to death, but their\nsentences were later reduced to life imprisonment.\n\n For nearly forty years, Vernon struggled with the knowledge that his testimony had put\nPlaintiffs in prison. He later testified, “Through out [sic] the years this case has . . . be[en] heavy\non my emotion, my everything.” R. 99-2, PageID 1234. “I wanted to come forward throughout\nthe years, but I was scared, scared to come forward and tell the truth . . . with this battle in my\nmind, battle in my spirit, battle in my heart . . . . I’m battling with this . . . pretty much all my life\n. . . .” R. 99-1, PageID 1203. The years did not lessen the turmoil in Vernon’s mind.\n\n One day in 2013, Vernon finally disburdened his conscience. He was lying in a hospital\nbed, stricken with hypertension and kidney failure, when his pastor visited and told him that\nInnocence Project attorneys were seeking to exonerate Plaintiffs. Vernon testified:\n\n So, after he stated that and I said, okay, well, you know what—I got up out of the\n bed and I just broke down and I cried on his shoulder and I said, well, I’m ready to\n tell the truth, I’m ready to come forward and tell the truth that Ricky Jackson did\n not commit the crime that he went to prison for.\n\nId. at PageID 1203–04.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 7\n\n\n Vernon formally recanted his testimony against each of the three Plaintiffs in November\n2014. After the recantation, the prosecutor for Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is located,\nadmitted that there was “no evidence tying any of the three convicted defendants to the crimes”\nand that “[t]hey have been victims of a terrible injustice.” R. 116, PageID 6302–03.\n\nB. Procedural History\n\n On May 19, 2015, Jackson filed suit against Terpay, Farmer, Stoiker,2 Staimpel, and\nCleveland (collectively, “Defendants”), as well as others,3 alleging a multitude of state and federal\nclaims. Bridgeman and Ajamu filed suit against the same defendants on July 2, 2015. On October\n1, 2015, Cleveland moved for judgment on the pleadings, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n12(c), as to the state-law claims in both complaints. The district court granted both motions.\n\n In November 2015, Jackson, and Bridgeman and Ajamu in their parallel lawsuit, all moved\nfor leave to file amended complaints substituting the administrator of the estates of the deceased\nDefendants (the “administrator”) for those Defendants. (J. Reid Yoder is the administrator of all\nof the estates.) The district court denied those motions as futile, reasoning that a § 1983 claim\nbrought in Ohio does not survive a defendant’s death.\n\n On January 27, 2017, Stoiker (the only living individual Defendant) moved for summary\njudgment in both lawsuits, arguing that he was not involved in any unconstitutional activity and\nthat, even if he was, he is protected by qualified immunity. On the same date, Cleveland also\nmoved for summary judgment as to the Monell claims, arguing that Plaintiffs had failed to provide\nevidence sufficient for a jury to find Cleveland liable. The district court granted both motions for\nsummary judgment.\n\n\n\n\n 2Karen Lamendola is acting as guardian ad litem on behalf of Stoiker and is therefore the named defendant-\nappellee representing Stoiker’s interests. We continue to refer to Stoiker as a Defendant for narrative convenience.\n 3Plaintiffs also named another former officer, Jerold Englehart, in their notices of appeal. However, in their\nappellate briefs, they expressly abandon their claims against Englehart. Jackson Br. at 33; Ajamu & Bridgeman Br.\nat 6.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 8\n\n\n II. DISCUSSION\n\n We review de novo a judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n12(c), applying the same standard we apply to review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule\n12(b)(6). Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 623 F.3d 281, 284 (6th Cir. 2010).\nWe therefore “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all\nallegations as true” to determine whether the “complaint . . . contain[s] sufficient factual matter,\naccepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Doe v. Miami Univ., 882\nF.3d 579, 588 (6th Cir. 2018) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that leave to amend “should [be] freely\ngive[n] . . . when justice so requires.” “We review a district court’s order denying a Rule 15(a)\nmotion to amend for an abuse of discretion.” Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d\n417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir.\n1990)). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact,\nuses an erroneous legal standard, or improperly applies the law.” United States v. Arny, 831 F.3d\n725, 730 (6th Cir. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n “We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Adair v. Charter Cty.\nof Wayne, 452 F.3d 482, 486 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Allen v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 405,\n409 (6th Cir. 1999)). Summary judgment is appropriate when “no genuine dispute as to any\nmaterial fact” exists and the moving party “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.\nCiv. P. 56(a). “A genuine dispute of material fact exists ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable\njury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Peffer v. Stephens, 880 F.3d 256, 262 (6th\nCir. 2018) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). At the summary\njudgment stage, “the evidence is construed and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the\nnonmoving party.” Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 471 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Hawkins v.\nAnheuser-Busch, Inc., 517 F.3d 321, 332 (6th Cir. 2008)).\n\n Numerous decisions by the district court are now on appeal: (1) the district court’s\ndismissal, with prejudice, of Plaintiffs’ claims against Cleveland for indemnification under state\nlaw; (2) the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motions to substitute the administrator of the\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 9\n\n\ndeceased Defendants’ estates as a defendant; (3) the district court’s grant of summary judgment to\nStoiker on the § 1983 claims; and (4) the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Cleveland\non the Monell claims. We address each issue in turn.\n\nA. Indemnification Claims\n\n The claims against Cleveland under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B)4 seek\nindemnification for damages based on the alleged torts of the individual Defendants, who are\nformer employees of Cleveland. Section 2744.07(B) provides that “a political subdivision shall\nindemnify and hold harmless an employee” found liable for that employee’s acts, so long as the\nemployee was “acting in good faith” and “within the scope of employment.”5 The district court\ngranted Cleveland’s motions for judgment on the pleadings, reasoning that § 2744.07(B) provides\nonly a tortfeasor employee, and not a tort victim, with the right to bring a claim of indemnification\nagainst the tortfeasor’s employer.\n\n Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in dismissing their indemnification claims with\nprejudice because the claims were not yet ripe and unripe claims, if they are to be dismissed, should\nonly be dismissed without prejudice.\n\n Generally, a claim may not be adjudicated on its merits unless it is ripe. See Nat’l Rifle\nAss’n of Am. v. Magaw, 132 F.3d 272, 284 (6th Cir. 1997). A claim is unripe when it “is anchored\nin future events that may not occur as anticipated, or at all.” Id. (citing Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v.\nState Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190, 200–01 (1983); Dames & Moore\nv. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 689 (1981)). This prohibition comes both from the case or controversy\nrequirement of Article III and from prudential considerations. See Brown v. Ferro Corp., 763 F.2d\n\n\n\n\n 4At the time of the district court’s opinion, the relevant language appeared in\n § 2744.07(A)(2), so the district\ncourt cited that provision. See Jackson v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:15CV989, 2016 WL 3952117, at *2 (N.D. Ohio\nJuly 20, 2016). Because the Ohio Revised Code has since been amended, we cite the subsection in which the relevant\nlanguage now appears, subsection (B). The language has not been changed in any way that would affect the district\ncourt’s, or our, analysis.\n 5Cleveland’s brief does not address whether the defendant officers were acting “in good faith” and within\nthe scope of their employment for purposes of the indemnification claims, and the district court did not consider those\nissues. We will not address unargued principles of Ohio law on which the district court did not rule.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 10\n\n\n798, 801 (6th Cir. 1985) (noting that a ripeness analysis includes a discretionary determination\nbeyond the Article III standing considerations).\n\n The ripeness doctrine exists “to prevent the courts, through premature adjudication, from\nentangling themselves in abstract disagreements.” Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co.,\n473 U.S. 568, 580 (1985) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967)).\nApplication of this doctrine “requires that the court exercise its discretion to determine if judicial\nresolution would be desirable under all of the circumstances.” Brown, 763 F.2d at 801. Of primary\nimportance is “whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution,” and, if so, the\ndegree of “hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied” before the claim is allowed to ripen\nfurther. Young v. Klutznick, 652 F.2d 617, 625 (6th Cir. 1981) (quoting Toilet Goods Ass’n v.\nGardner, 387 U.S. 158, 162 (1967)).\n\n Indemnification claims are frequently brought while unripe, depending as they often do on\nthe favorable adjudication of underlying tort claims. Because of this, as a general matter, a claim\nfor indemnification for damages that may be awarded on an underlying tort claim should not be\nadjudicated on the merits until the underlying claim is adjudicated. See, e.g., Safety Nat’l Cas.\nCorp. v. Am. Special Risk Ins. Co., 99 F. App’x 41, 43 (6th Cir. 2004) (finding unripe a claim of\nindemnification for fraudulent conveyance because, among other reasons, the underlying claim for\nfraudulent conveyance had not yet been adjudicated); see also Armstrong v. Ala. Power Co., 667\nF.2d 1385, 1388–89 (11th Cir. 1982) (affirming dismissal of indemnity suits as premature prior to\nentry of judgment in underlying lawsuit); A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Constr.\nCo., 559 F.2d 928, 932 (4th Cir. 1977) (holding indemnification issue not ripe prior to adjudication\nof underlying claims).\n\n Because the ripeness doctrine is discretionary, courts sometimes apply an exception for\nindemnification claims that have no possibility of success, regardless of the merits of the\nunderlying claims. See, e.g., Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Grand Pointe, LLC, No. 1:05-CV-161, 2006\nWL 1806014, at *9 (E.D. Tenn. June 29, 2006) (collecting cases in support of the proposition that\n“a court may grant summary judgment on the issue of indemnification if it can determine the\nallegations in the complaint could under no circumstances lead to a result which would trigger the\nduty to indemnify” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 11\n\n\n The Sixth Circuit has not analyzed the propriety of this exception, and we need not do so\nnow because, even if it is permissible for district courts to adjudicate indemnification claims with\nno possibility of success prior to the adjudication of underlying tort claims, this is not such a case.\n\n If Plaintiffs’ indemnification claims have no possibility of success, that would be because\nOhio law provides that only the tortfeasor employees, and not the parties injured by them, may\nbring claims under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B). The district court did an admirable job\nanalyzing Ohio court cases before holding that Ohio law does so provide. See Jackson v. City of\nCleveland, No. 1:15CV989, 2016 WL 3952117, at *2 (N.D. Ohio July 20, 2016). But the only\ncases available to the district court were from the Ohio courts of appeal, as the Ohio Supreme\nCourt had yet to opine on the issue.\n\n The judgments of Ohio appellate courts not being binding on the Ohio Supreme Court,\nthere remains a possibility that Plaintiffs’ indemnification claims could succeed: Plaintiffs would\nneed to win their underlying tort action and, while that action was pending, the Ohio Supreme\nCourt would need to adopt their interpretation of Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B). Although the\nlatter eventuality may seem remote, it is far from impossible and, as it happens, the Ohio Supreme\nCourt has accepted an appeal addressing this very issue. See Ayers v. Cleveland, 106 N.E.3d 65\n(Ohio 2018) (Table).\n\n Because it is not impossible for Plaintiffs to prevail on their indemnification claims, those\nclaims are not ripe for adjudication. As discussed above, in evaluating whether a claim is ripe,\ncourts should determine (1) whether a matter is “appropriate for judicial resolution” and\n(2) whether the parties would undergo hardship “if judicial relief is denied” on their claim before\nit ripens further. Young, 652 F.2d at 625. Neither factor supports finding the indemnification\nclaims are ripe here.\n\n First, interpreting Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B) is best avoided unless necessary.\nFederal courts generally avoid interpreting unsettled state law because state “courts are in the better\nposition to apply and interpret” their own jurisdiction’s law. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bowling\nGreen Prof’l Assocs., PLC, 495 F.3d 266, 272 (6th Cir. 2007). As the Supreme Court said in\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 12\n\n\nRailroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) and repeated in Louisiana\nPower & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25 (1959):\n\n Had we or they (the lower court judges) no choice in the matter but to decide what\n is the law of the state, we should hesitate long before rejecting their forecast of\n [state] law. But no matter how seasoned the judgment of the district court may be,\n it cannot escape being a forecast rather than a determination.\n\nThibodaux, 360 U.S. at 27 (quoting Pullman, 312 U.S. at 499). Where, as here, adjudicating an\nissue of state law is unnecessary because the litigation is in its early stages, and state law is\nunsettled, the inappropriateness of deciding the issue in federal court weighs in favor of finding\nthe claim unripe for adjudication in federal court.\n\n Second, that no harm will befall Cleveland if “judicial relief is denied” for the time being\nalso weighs in favor of finding the indemnification claims unripe. Young, 652 F.2d at 625. The\ndistrict court’s grant of Cleveland’s motions for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’\nindemnification claims did not release Cleveland from the litigation, as Plaintiffs still have Monell\nclaims outstanding against Cleveland. The only effect that denying Cleveland’s motions, or\nholding them in abeyance, would have on the litigation would be to delay adjudication of the\nindemnification claims until a later stage in the litigation. At that point, the district court may be\nable to avoid interpreting Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B), because the Ohio Supreme Court may\nalready have done so. The district court should interpret Ohio law only if the Ohio Supreme Court\nhas not done so by the time the underlying § 1983 claims have been properly adjudicated on\nremand, and if those claims are found to have merit.\n\n The ripeness doctrine therefore requires that the indemnification claims not be adjudicated\non the merits at the pleading stage, given the unsettled condition of state law. Because “a dismissal\nwith prejudice operates as a rejection of the plaintiff’s claims on the merits,” the district court erred\nin dismissing those claims with prejudice. Mich. Surgery Inv., LLC v. Arman, 627 F.3d 572, 575\n(6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. One Tract of Real Prop., 95 F.3d 422, 425–26 (6th Cir.\n1996)).\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 13\n\n\nB. Plaintiffs’ Motions to Substitute\n\n Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaints to substitute the administrator of the\nestates of Defendants Terpay, Staimpel, and Farmer as a party in place of those Defendants, as\nthey are now deceased. District courts “should freely give leave” to amend a complaint pre-trial\n“when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). One permissible reason to deny leave is the\n“futility of [the] amendment[s].” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).\n\n The district court denied leave to amend, reasoning that § 1983 claims brought in Ohio do\nnot survive the death of the tortfeasor, and, therefore, the requested amendments would be futile.6\nOn appeal, Defendants argue that the district court was correct, but also suggest an alternative\nground for affirming—that Plaintiffs did not timely present their claims to the estates of the\ndeceased Defendants. We address the survival and timeliness arguments in turn.\n\n 1. Survival of § 1983 Claims\n\n Defendants first argue that the denial of Plaintiffs’ motions to amend should be affirmed\nbecause § 1983 claims do not survive the death of the tortfeasor in Ohio.\n\n 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) provides that in actions to protect civil rights, where “the laws of the\nUnited States . . . are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish\noffenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes\nof the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held,” shall be\napplied, “so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”\n\n The Supreme Court has interpreted this statutory language as requiring a three-step process\nfor determining which jurisdiction’s procedural law, such as provisions concerning statutes of\nlimitations or the survival of claims, is used in § 1983 suits. See Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S.\n584, 588–89 (1978). First, a district court must determine whether there is an applicable federal\nlaw that covers the issue, and, if there is, apply it. See id. Second, if there is no relevant federal\nlaw, then the district court must determine what the appropriate rule is in the state where the district\n\n\n 6The district court also denied leave to amend on futility grounds with regard to Plaintiffs’ state-law claims\nagainst the deceased Defendants, but Plaintiffs do not appeal that ruling.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 14\n\n\ncourt sits. See id. at 588. Third, the district court must determine whether the law of that state is\n“inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States;” if there is no inconsistency, the\nstate law is used, but if inconsistency exists, a federal common-law rule is used. Id. at 588–89.\n\n Because “[n]o federal statute or rule says anything about the survivorship of § 1983\nclaims,” Crabbs v. Scott, 880 F.3d 292, 294 (6th Cir. 2018), we turn to the relevant Ohio law,\nwhich provides:\n\n In addition to the causes of action which survive at common law, causes of\n action for mesne profits, or injuries to the person or property, or for deceit or fraud,\n also shall survive; and such actions may be brought notwithstanding the death of\n the person entitled or liable thereto.\n\nOhio Rev. Code § 2305.21. Plaintiffs argued before the district court that their claims fall within\n“injuries to the person,” while Defendants argued that “injuries to the person” encompasses only\nphysical injuries, and not the violation of rights alleged in this case. The district court agreed with\nDefendants, citing a district court case holding that under Ohio law, § 1983 claims similar to those\nbrought by Plaintiffs did not involve “injuries to the person.” Tinney v. Richland Cty., No. 1:14\nCV 703, 2014 WL 6896256, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 8, 2014), aff’d, 678 F. App’x 362 (6th Cir.\n2017).\n\n On appeal, Defendants again argue that Plaintiffs’ claims for malicious prosecution,\nfabrication of evidence, and Brady violations cannot be characterized as “injuries to the person”\nthat survive the death of the tortfeasor. Therefore, they argue that Tinney controls the result here.\nDefendants also argue that State ex rel. Crow v. Weygandt, 162 N.E.2d 845, 848 (Ohio 1959), an\nOhio Supreme Court case holding that state-law claims for malicious prosecution do not survive\nthe death of a party, means that Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for malicious prosecution also do not\nsurvive. The Weygandt court based its holding on Ohio Revised Code § 2311.21, which provided:\n\n Unless otherwise provided, no action or proceeding pending in any court\n shall abate by the death of either or both of the parties thereto, except actions for\n libel, slander, malicious prosecution, for a nuisance, or against a judge of a County\n Court for misconduct in office, which shall abate by the death of either party.\n\nThis provision is still in effect, its language unamended since the Weygandt decision except for\none capitalization change. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2311.21. Finally, Defendants point to Stein-\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 15\n\n\nSapir v. Birdsell, 673 F.2d 165, 167 (6th Cir. 1982), a Sixth Circuit case recognizing the Weygandt\nrule.\n\n Neither Defendants’ reliance on Tinney nor their argument based on Weygandt is\npersuasive. To begin with, the Sixth Circuit’s unpublished opinion affirming the district court in\nTinney is no longer good law. After the district court’s judgment in this case, Tinney was\nsuperseded by Crabbs, a published opinion of this circuit that expressly rejected Tinney’s holding\nand held instead that all § 1983 claims are subject to the forum state’s survival rules for personal\ninjury actions, regardless of the specific type of injury underlying the § 1983 claim. See Crabbs,\n880 F.3d at 296.\n\n It is immaterial that Crabbs addressed an unreasonable search claim under the Fourth and\nFourteenth Amendments, see id. at 293, whereas Plaintiffs’ claims here are for malicious\nprosecution, fabrication of evidence, and Brady violations. Crabbs expressly disagreed with\nTinney, which did involve a malicious prosecution claim. The Tinney plaintiff had sued in Ohio;\ntherefore, his § 1983 claims were subject to Ohio survival rules just as Plaintiffs’ claims are here.\nNoting that the Tinney court did not apply Ohio’s survival rule for personal injury actions to a\n§ 1983 malicious prosecution claim, the Crabbs court announced that it was “part[ing] way with”\nTinney. Crabbs, 880 F.3d at 296. With that language, Crabbs rejected Tinney’s reasoning\npertaining to malicious prosecution claims.\n\n If the explicit rejection of Tinney were not enough to defeat Defendants’ argument, the\nCrabbs court’s more general discussion of its rationale would be. Although Crabbs involved an\nunreasonable search claim, the reasoning applied to all § 1983 claims. See 880 F.3d at 296. In\nexplaining that all § 1983 claims must be classified together for purposes of determining what state\nprocedural rules apply, the Crabbs court cited Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985), in which\nthe Supreme Court addressed what state statute of limitations should apply in § 1983 actions. See\nCrabbs, 880 F.3d at 294–95. (After Wilson was decided, Congress enacted a federal statute of\nlimitations, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1658.) Crabbs cited Wilson for three general propositions.\n“First, the characterization of § 1983 as a cause of action is itself a question of federal law . . . .\nSecond, all § 1983 claims must be characterized in the same way . . . . Third, § 1983 actions are\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 16\n\n\nbest characterized as personal injury actions.” Crabbs, 880 F.3d at 294–95 (second emphasis\nadded) (citing Wilson, 471 U.S. at 269–70, 271–75, 280).\n\n More specifically, the Crabbs court reasoned that all § 1983 claims must be treated the\nsame way for survival-of-claims purposes, just as they are for statute-of-limitations purposes. Id.\nat 295. The court’s language could not be clearer: “the appropriate level at which to generalize a\n§ 1983 claim under state law is as a personal injury action, sounding in tort, and nothing further.”\nId. at 296 (emphasis added). Therefore, although Weygandt and Ohio Revised Code § 2311.21\nare still good law, after Crabbs, they do not establish a separate survival rule for malicious\nprosecution claims brought under § 1983.\n\n Our court’s 1982 decision in Stein-Sapir is not to the contrary. Although Defendants argue\nthat that opinion adopted the Weygandt rule, all Stein-Sapir did was apply Weygandt—and an Ohio\nCourt of Appeals decision extending Weygandt’s survival rule to libel and slander claims—to hold\nthat the plaintiff’s state-law defamation claims did not survive the defendant’s death. See Stein-\nSapir, 673 F.2d at 167. Stein-Sapir involved only state law and did not mention § 1983.\n\n When hearing a direct appeal, this court evaluates the merits of the case based on the\ncurrent law and its interpretation, not the law and its interpretation existing when the district court\nentered its judgment. See Chaz Concrete Co., LLC v. Codell, 545 F.3d 407, 409 (6th Cir. 2008).\nAfter Crabbs, all claims brought under § 1983 are to be treated as actions sounding in personal\ninjury tort. Because Ohio Revised Code § 2305.21 provides that actions for personal injury survive\nthe death of the tortfeasor, and that statute does not conflict with the laws of the United States, see\nCrabbs, 880 F.3d at 295, all § 1983 actions brought in Ohio survive the death of the tortfeasor.\n\n Therefore, through no fault of its own because its ruling predated Crabbs, the district court\nwas in error as to its grounds for finding that the proposed amendments, substituting the\nadministrator of the estates of Terpay, Staimpel, and Farmer for those Defendants, would be futile.\n\n 2. Timeliness of Plaintiffs’ Claims Against the Estates\n\n Defendants argue that we should affirm the district court on alternative grounds—namely,\nthat the claims against the estates were not timely brought. Proper adjudication of this issue\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 17\n\n\nrequires analysis of both Ohio and federal law. Defendants argue that Ohio estate law regarding\nthe timely filing of claims defines which entities have the capacity to be sued, while Plaintiffs\nargue that those provisions are merely statutes of limitations. See Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2117.06,\n2117.37.\n\n The points of contention do not end there, however. If Plaintiffs are correct that Ohio estate\nlaw merely establishes statutes of limitations, the parties also dispute whether those statutes or the\ngeneral Ohio statute of limitations applies to § 1983 suits. On the other hand, if Defendants are\ncorrect that Ohio estate law defines which entities have the capacity to be sued, the parties also\ndisagree over whether federal courts hearing § 1983 actions are bound by that definition, as well\nas whether an exception to that definition, provided in Ohio Revised Code § 2117.06(G), applies\nto the facts of this case.\n\n The district court did not address these issues, instead relying on its holding that the § 1983\nclaims did not survive the deaths of the deceased Defendants.7 “It is the general rule that a federal\nappellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.” Lindsay v. Yates, 498 F.3d\n434, 441 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Henry, 429 F.3d 603, 618 (6th Cir. 2005)). This\ndirective is not jurisdictional, however, and “a departure from this general rule may be warranted\nwhen ‘the issue is presented with sufficient clarity and completeness and its resolution will\nmaterially advance the progress of this already protracted litigation.’” Katt v. Dykhouse, 983 F.2d\n690, 695 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., 838 F.2d 1445,\n1461 (6th Cir. 1988)).\n\n We will follow the general rule and decline to address these issues in the first instance.\nThese are thorny issues of first impression in this circuit, and because the district court has not yet\naddressed them, we do not believe they are “presented with sufficient clarity and completeness”\nfor our review. Id.\n\n\n\n\n 7The district court did address timeliness with regard to Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, but Plaintiffs do not\nchallenge that analysis on appeal. The timeliness analysis required for the § 1983 claims differs from that required\nfor the state-law claims: the former involves a three-step analysis to determine the applicable law, as described in\nsection II(B)(1), supra. See Robertson, 436 U.S. at 588–89. The district court did not conduct this analysis.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 18\n\n\n 3. Conclusion\n\n The district court erred in finding that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments would be futile on\nthe ground that § 1983 claims brought in Ohio do not survive the deaths of the tortfeasors, and we\ndecline to address whether Defendants have presented an alternative ground on which the district\ncourt’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motions to amend could be affirmed. Because applying the wrong\nlegal standard constitutes reversible error on abuse of discretion review, United States v. Arny, 831\nF.3d 725, 730 (6th Cir. 2016), the district court’s denial of the motions to file amended complaints\nis REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.\n\nC. Stoiker’s Motion for Summary Judgment\n\n We next address the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Stoiker on the § 1983\nclaims that Stoiker violated Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by withholding\nexculpatory evidence, fabricating evidence, and conspiring to do the same, and Plaintiffs’ Fourth\nAmendment right to be free of malicious prosecution.\n\n If a police officer violates the Constitution, “42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a civil remedy for\nthose” injured by the violation. Peffer v. Stephens, 880 F.3d 256, 263 (6th Cir. 2018). But officers\nsued under the aegis of § 1983 are protected from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity\n“insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of\nwhich a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)\n(quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). Qualified immunity does not apply if\n(1) “on the plaintiff’s facts,” a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) the alleged violation was\nof “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”\nHoover v. Radabaugh, 307 F.3d 460, 465 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Dickerson v. McClellan, 101\nF.3d 1151, 1158 (6th Cir. 1996)).\n\n The district court found that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find\nthat Stoiker had committed any of the alleged constitutional violations. We address each of the\nappealed determinations in turn.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 19\n\n\n 1. Constitutional Violations\n\n a. Withholding Exculpatory Evidence\n\n The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state may “deprive\nany person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within\nits jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. In Brady v.\nMaryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), the Supreme Court held “that the suppression by the\nprosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the\nevidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of\nthe prosecution.” Prosecutors are not the only state actors bound by Brady, and “police can commit\na constitutional deprivation analogous to that recognized in Brady by withholding or suppressing\nexculpatory material.” Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351, 379 (6th Cir. 2009).\n\n Brady claims have three elements: “[1] the evidence at issue must be favorable to the\naccused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; [2] that evidence must have\nbeen suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and [3] prejudice must have\nensued.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281–82 (1999).\n\n The district court granted summary judgment to Stoiker on the ground that Plaintiffs had\nfailed to present evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the second element—that Stoiker\nhad suppressed evidence. It did so for two reasons. First, it held that there was insufficient\nevidence for a jury to find that Stoiker was involved with the unconstitutional activity at all, noting\nthat Vernon had never identified Stoiker as one of the officers involved.8 Second, even if Stoiker\nwere involved, the district court held, there was insufficient evidence that he was aware of any\nexculpatory evidence, and an officer unaware of exculpatory evidence cannot suppress that\nevidence.\n\n\n\n\n 8“The only evidence that points to Stoiker’s involvement are the signatures on the statement and the report.\nHowever, even if those are Stoiker’s signatures, Plaintiff has not cited to any policy, practice, or procedure about the\nmeaning or effect of signature [sic]. Therefore, the Court is left to speculate as to what the signature meant.” Jackson\nv. City of Cleveland, CASE NO. 1:15CV989, 2017 WL 3380456, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017).\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 20\n\n\n We disagree with the district court’s reasoning. Given the evidence in the record, although\na jury might ultimately find that Stoiker did not suppress evidence, it would not be unreasonable\nin finding that he had.\n\n Consider the following evidence. Vernon testified that Staimpel and another officer led\nhim into a room after he failed to identify Plaintiffs at a line-up and coerced him into signing a\nfalse statement about that line-up. Staimpel testified at trial that (1) Stoiker was his partner and\n(2) Stoiker was present for the line-up. Based on Staimpel’s testimony, a reasonable jury could\ninfer that (3) Stoiker was present during the post-line-up interview of Vernon and (4) Stoiker was\npresent when Vernon signed his false statement explaining his “fear” of Plaintiffs.\n\n In addition, the record contains a police report, signed by Stoiker and dated the day that\nVernon testified he was coerced into signing a false statement by two detectives, detailing the\nversion of the line-up and subsequent interview that Vernon alleges were fabricated. The district\ncourt is correct that the report does not say that Stoiker was involved in that line-up and interview,\nbut a jury is “allowed to make reasonable inferences from facts proven in evidence having a\nreasonable tendency to sustain them,” Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372, 396 (1943), and it\nis reasonable to infer that a detective who signs a report was involved in the events recounted in\nthat report.\n\n Because of this proof, a reasonable jury could find that Stoiker was present when Vernon\nwas coerced into signing the allegedly false statement, in which he claimed that he had failed to\nidentify Jackson and Bridgeman in the line-up because he was afraid of them. And if Stoiker was\npresent when Vernon was coerced into signing the allegedly false statement, he knew that Vernon\nhad not given fear of Plaintiffs as his true reason for not identifying them—in other words, that the\nstatement was false. That knowledge was exculpatory evidence. See Giglio v. United States, 405\nU.S. 150, 154 (1972) (“When the reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt\nor innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within [Brady’s disclosure]\nrule.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). If Stoiker was present, he also knew that\ndetectives coerced Vernon’s statement, which was a related, but separate, piece of exculpatory\nevidence. See id.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 21\n\n\n In addition, a reasonable jury could find that Stoiker was aware of a third piece of\nexculpatory evidence. While his possible awareness of this evidence is less clear-cut than of the\nabove-mentioned pieces of exculpatory evidence, it would not be unreasonable for a jury to infer\nthat Stoiker knew Vernon had said he had not seen Plaintiffs commit the crime with which they\nwere charged. Whether or not Stoiker was told by other officers that Vernon had not seen Plaintiffs\ncommit the murder, Vernon stated that he was asked at the line-up “if I could recognize anyone\nthere who was at the shooting” and that he answered that question in the negative.9 R. 99-3,\nPageID 1236.\n\n Stoiker and the district court interpret that question as asking whether Vernon recognized\nanyone in the line-up. Vernon interpreted it as asking whether he had seen anyone in the line-up\ncommit the crime.10 If Vernon’s interpretation is correct, then the officers present—which a\nreasonable jury could find included Stoiker—knew that Vernon was claiming he had not seen\nPlaintiffs commit the crime when he answered “No” to their question. A reasonable jury could\nfind that Vernon, the only witness to the events who has testified to the contents of that\nconversation, interpreted the question correctly.\n\n As Stoiker did not disclose any of this evidence to prosecutors, a reasonable jury could find\nthat Stoiker suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady.\n\n As to the third element of a Brady claim, a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiffs suffered\nprejudice as a result of the alleged suppression. To show prejudice, Plaintiffs must show that the\nallegedly suppressed evidence was “material;” in other words, “that there is a reasonable\nprobability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict.” Strickler, 527\nU.S. at 280, 281. Because Vernon’s coerced statement formed the core of the prosecution’s case,\nthere is a reasonable likelihood that, had the juries in Plaintiffs’ trials known that that statement\nwas fabricated and coerced, or that Vernon had orally stated that he had not seen the shooting, the\n\n\n\n 9As mentioned in section I(A), supra, Vernon alternatively recalled that he may have been asked if “I see\nanybody that I recognize up there.” R. 99-1, PageID 1190.\n 10Vernon later explained that he answered in the negative because “I didn’t seen happen [sic] on May 19,\n1975.” R. 99-2, PageID 1233.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 22\n\n\njuries would not have convicted Plaintiffs. Therefore, a reasonable jury could find all three\nelements of a Brady claim satisfied.\n\n b. Fabricating Evidence\n\n The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is also “violated when evidence is\nknowingly fabricated and a reasonable likelihood exists that the false evidence would have affected\nthe decision of the jury.” Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 737 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing\nStemler v. City of Florence, 126 F.3d 856, 872 (6th Cir. 1997)).\n\n Stoiker presents two arguments for why summary judgment was appropriate on this issue.\nFirst, he contends there was insufficient evidence that he was involved in the fabrication of\nVernon’s statement. Second, Stoiker argues there was insufficient evidence that the fabricated\nstatement affected the decision of the jury. The district court agreed with both of Stoiker’s\narguments.\n\n Turning to the first argument, a reasonable jury could find, as discussed in section\nII(C)(1)(a), supra, that Stoiker was in the room when Vernon was initially intimidated, left the\nroom with Staimpel, and then returned to the room with Staimpel, at which point Staimpel coerced\nVernon into signing the statement. This does not necessarily entail that Stoiker participated in the\ncreation of the false statement, but a reasonable jury could infer that Stoiker either drafted, or\nassisted Staimpel in drafting, the false statement. If Stoiker was actively involved in the fabrication\nof the false statement, he knowingly fabricated evidence.\n\n As for the second argument, there is, in fact, sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to\nconclude that the false statement influenced the juries at Plaintiffs’ trials. True, as the district court\nnoted, although the statement was introduced in evidence by the defense at Jackson’s trial, it was\nused only by defense counsel in an attempt to impeach Vernon’s testimony and “it is unclear\nwhether the jury in the Jackson trial had the statement while they were deliberating.” 11 Jackson\nv. City of Cleveland, CASE NO. 1:15CV989, 2017 WL 3380456, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017).\n\n\n 11Although the possibility is ultimately unnecessary to our holding on the fabrication-of-evidence claims,\nwe note that because Vernon’s statement was introduced in evidence at Jackson’s trial, a reasonable jury could infer\nthat the jury that convicted Jackson had access to the statement at some point in their deliberations.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 23\n\n\nAlso, the statement was not admitted in evidence at Bridgeman’s or Ajamu’s trial at all. And it is\nfair to conclude, as the district court reasoned, that “Vernon’s live testimony,” not the statement,\n“led to the conviction[s] in all three trials.” Id.\n\n But the relevant question is not whether the fabricated evidence was shown to the jury; it\nis whether the statement affected the decision of the jury. For example, a fabricated search warrant\naffidavit, used to obtain evidence later shown to the jury, can form the basis for a fabrication-of-\nevidence suit. See Webb v. United States, 789 F.3d 647, 670 (6th Cir. 2015). And fabricated\nevidence that “is used as [the] basis for a criminal charge” can form the basis for a § 1983 claim\nbecause, absent that evidence, there would have been no jury. Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273,\n294 n.19 (3d Cir. 2014).\n\n A reasonable jury in the present case could find that the fabricated statement impacted the\njuries’ decisions in the criminal trials in at least two ways. First, the prosecutor testified that his\nunderstanding of Vernon’s statement was based on the copy in the police report and that, if he had\nknown what had actually happened on the day of the line-up, he would have declined to prosecute:\nhe does not, as he put it, “believe in prosecuting innocent people.” R. 114-29, PageID 5350. The\nprosecutor did not speak to Vernon prior to bringing charges, and so the false statement constituted\nthe entire basis for his understanding of Vernon’s involvement. If Staimpel and Stoiker had not\nfabricated Vernon’s statement, therefore, charges would not have been brought, and, of course, a\njury that is never empaneled is a jury that does not return a guilty verdict.\n\n A jury in the present case also could find that the falsified statement caused the criminal\nverdicts because the statement coerced Vernon to testify in conformance with it. Unlike Staimpel’s\nbaseless threat to prosecute Vernon’s parents if Vernon failed to sign a statement saying that he\nhad seen Plaintiffs commit the crime, Vernon would have faced a real threat of prosecution for\nperjury had his testimony conflicted with his earlier signed statement. See Osburn v. State, 7 Ohio\n212, 214–15 (1835) (admitting as evidence of perjury a paper signed by the defendant).\n\n A reasonable jury could therefore find both that Stoiker participated in the fabrication of\nVernon’s statement and that there is a reasonable probability the statement affected the juries at\nPlaintiffs’ trials.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 24\n\n\n c. Conspiracy to Withhold and Fabricate Evidence\n\n To make out a claim for conspiracy to deprive them of their due process rights, Plaintiffs\nmust show “that (1) a single plan existed, (2) the conspirators shared a conspiratorial objective to\ndeprive the plaintiffs of their constitutional rights, and (3) an overt act was committed in\nfurtherance of the conspiracy that caused the injury.” Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 622 (6th\nCir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Revis v. Meldrum, 489 F.3d 273, 290 (6th\nCir. 2007)).\n\n For the reasons discussed above, a reasonable jury could find that Stoiker and Staimpel\nplanned to draft a false statement and coerce Vernon into signing that statement and that they\ncommitted an overt act in furtherance of that plan. Further supporting the conspiracy claim, it\nwould not be unreasonable for a jury to infer that the detectives planned to withhold the existence\nof their acts from prosecutors for the purpose of tipping the scales against Plaintiffs, as informing\nprosecutors of the coercion would have rendered their actions meaningless.\n\n However, the inquiry does not end there. We must also determine whether an individual\ncan be held liable for conspiracy when the alleged conspiracy was undertaken by agreement with\nanother individual or individuals employed by the same entity as the defendant.\n\n The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, which states that if “all of the defendants are\nmembers of the same collective entity, there are not two separate ‘people’ to form a conspiracy,”\nhas been applied to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) by this court. Johnson v. Hills & Dales Gen. Hosp.,\n40 F.3d 837, 839–40 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hull v. Cuyahoga Valley Joint Vocational Sch. Dist.\nBd. of Educ., 926 F.2d 505, 510 (6th Cir. 1991)). Section 1985(3) creates a cause of action for a\nconspiracy between two or more persons to deprive another of the equal protection of the laws.\n\n We have also held that the doctrine applies in § 1985(2) suits. Doherty v. Am. Motors\nCorp., 728 F.2d 334, 339 (6th Cir. 1984). 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) creates a cause of action for a\nconspiracy to, among other actions, obstruct justice or to intimidate a party, witness, or juror.\n\n But this circuit has never decided whether the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine also\napplies to suits under § 1983. See DiLuzio v. Vill. of Yorkville, 796 F.3d 604, 615 (6th Cir. 2015)\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 25\n\n\n(noting that “the Sixth Circuit has never held that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to\nmunicipal government officials in a § 1983 action and the district courts within our circuit are split\non this question”). To determine whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether\nStoiker conspired to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, therefore, we must resolve this issue\nof first impression.\n\n We are aware of only one circuit, the Eleventh, that has squarely addressed the issue and\nhas determined that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies in § 1983 actions as in § 1985\nactions. See Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240, 1261 (11th Cir. 2010); Rehberg v. Paulk,\n611 F.3d 828, 854 (11th Cir. 2010). By contrast, we are aware of no circuit that has applied the\ndoctrine in § 1985 actions but declined to apply it in § 1983 actions.12\n\n We join the Eleventh Circuit and hold that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies\nin § 1983 suits to bar conspiracy claims where two or more employees of the same entity are\nalleged to have been acting within the scope of their employment when they allegedly conspired\ntogether to deprive the plaintiff of his rights. See Grider, 618 F.3d at 1261–62; cf. Johnson, 40 F.3d\nat 841 (“[W]hen employees act outside the course of their employment, they and the corporation\nmay form a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).”). We so hold because the considerations that\nsupport applying the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in § 1985 suits pertain equally to the\n§ 1983 context, and we discern no logical distinction upon which to treat § 1983 conspiracy claims\ndifferently. Cf. Hull, 926 F.2d at 509–10 (holding that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine\napplies to § 1985(3) claims and stating “that this court’s opinion in Doherty [which applied the\ndoctrine to § 1985(2)—not § 1985(3)—claims] is dispositive of this issue”). Recognizing that\ndistrict courts within this circuit have split on the question,13 we will explain why the reasons for\napplying the doctrine to § 1983 outweigh the reasons for not doing so.\n\n\n 12Some courts have held that the doctrine does not apply in the civil rights context at all. See, e.g., Brever v.\nRockwell Int’l Corp., 40 F.3d 1119, 1126–27 (10th Cir. 1994).\n 13Compare Vaduva v. City of Xenia, No. 3:17-cv-41, 2017 WL 4773076, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2017)\n(applying the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in § 1983 suit); Gillespie v. City of Battle Creek, 100 F. Supp. 3d 623,\n631–32 (W.D. Mich. 2015) (same); Wright v. Bloomfield Twp., No. 12-15379, 2014 WL 5499278, at *15–16 (E.D.\nMich. Oct. 30, 2014) (same); Pardi v. Cty. of Wayne, No. 12–12063, 2013 WL 1011280, at *14–15 (E.D. Mich. Mar.\n14, 2013) (same); Audio Visual Equip. & Supplies, Inc. v. Cty. of Wayne, No. 06-10904, 2007 WL 4180974, at *5–6\n(E.D. Mich. Nov. 27, 2007) (same); Adcock v. City of Memphis, No. 06-2109, 2007 WL 784344, at *4–5 (W.D. Tenn.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 26\n\n\n The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine was recognized in antitrust and civil rights cases\nbased on the legal notion of corporations as “persons.” See Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube\nCorp., 467 U.S. 752, 769 n.15 (1984); Doherty, 728 F.2d at 339. When employees of a corporation\nact to further the purposes of that “person,” principles from the law of agency dictate that those\nemployees be treated not as separate “persons” but as part of the same “person.” See Hull, 926\nF.2d at 509–10; Doherty, 728 F.2d at 339. We have recognized the relevance of these principles\nto suits against employees of local government entities as well as against employees of private\ncorporations. See Hull, 926 F.2d at 509–10. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that\nmunicipalities are “persons” for purposes of § 1983. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,\n690 (1978).\n\n Because the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine follows from the legal definition of\n“person,” which includes local governments, the doctrine has been developed to deal with the\nquestion whether there are two separate persons to form a conspiracy. See Hull, 926 F.2d at 510.\nThe doctrine’s application to other civil rights statutes has not been premised upon any factor\nunique to those statutes. We therefore see no reason to decline to apply the doctrine to § 1983.\nSection 1983 creates a cause of action against any “person” who deprives a plaintiff of his rights,\njust like § 1985. Therefore, if § 1985 cannot be violated by an alleged conspiracy where the\nalleged conspirators are all employees of the same entity acting within the scope of their\nemployment, neither can § 1983.\n\n Furthermore, we decline to adopt the rationale that because “[§] 1985 is in its essence a\nconspiracy statute[,] [while] [§] 1983 is not,” the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to the\nformer but not the latter. Kinkus v. Vill. of Yorkville, 476 F. Supp. 2d 829, 840 (S.D. Ohio 2007).\nAlthough § 1983 does not expressly contemplate a cause of action for conspiracy, once we have\nrecognized such a cause of action—which we have, see, e.g., DiLuzio, 796 F.3d at 615–16—the\nquestion whether a conspiracy can exist where all alleged conspirators work for the same entity,\n\n\nMar. 13, 2007) (same); Turner v. Viviano, No. 04-CV-70509-DT, 2005 WL 1678895, at *13 (E.D. Mich. July 15,\n2005) (same), with Tinney v. Richland Cty., No. 1:14 CV 703, 2015 WL 542415, at *12 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 10, 2015)\n(declining to apply the doctrine in a § 1983 suit), aff’d on other grounds, 678 F. App’x 362 (6th Cir. 2017); Kinkus v.\nVill. of Yorkville, 476 F. Supp. 2d 829, 839–40 (S.D. Ohio 2007) (same), rev’d on other grounds, 289 F. App’x 86\n(6th Cir. 2008).\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 27\n\n\nand are alleged to have been acting in the scope of their employment, naturally arises. That inquiry\nis identical under § 1983 and § 1985. After all, we did not apply the intracorporate conspiracy\ndoctrine in § 1985 actions on a theory that the text of that particular statutory provision demanded\nit. Instead, we simply adopted a conspiracy jurisprudence that developed outside the civil rights\ncontext. See Hull, 926 F.2d at 509.\n\n Nor do we see any reason to limit application of the doctrine to cases in which a\nmunicipality is alleged to have conspired with one or more of its employees, in contrast to cases\nin which two or more employees are alleged only to have conspired with each other. We have\nmade clear that “members of the same legal entity cannot conspire with one another as long as\ntheir alleged acts were within the scope of their employment.” Jackson v. City of Columbus, 194\nF.3d 737, 753 (6th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added) (citing Johnson, 40 F.3d at 840), abrogated on\nother grounds by Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002); accord Hull, 926 F.2d at\n510. In Hull, we applied the doctrine to bar the plaintiff’s § 1985(3) claim alleging conspiracy\nagainst “a school district superintendent, the executive director of the district, and a school\nadministrator, all of whom [were] employees or agents of the Board [of Education].” 926 F.2d at\n510. The plaintiff did not allege that the school board itself was a conspirator, but we noted that\n“[s]ince all of the defendants [were] members of the same collective entity, there [were] not two\nseparate ‘people’ to form a conspiracy.” Id.\n\n Finally, we have recognized an exception to the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in\n§ 1985(3) suits where the defendants were alleged to have been acting outside the scope of their\nemployment, see Johnson, 40 F.3d at 841, and we have indicated that the exception would apply\nequally in the § 1983 context were we to apply the doctrine in § 1983 suits, see DiLuzio, 796 F.3d\nat 616. Accordingly, the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to § 1983, and we assume that\nadopting the doctrine entails adopting the exception. Cf. DiLuzio, 796 F.3d at 616. But the scope-\nof-employment exception is unsupported by the record here because Plaintiffs have alleged that\nStoiker and the other individual Defendants were acting “within the scope of their employment.”\nR. 86, PageID 1018; No. 17-3843, R. 53, PageID 707.\n\n Therefore, as a matter of law, Stoiker cannot be liable for conspiracy in violation of § 1983\nwhere he is alleged to have conspired with other employees of the same government entity, in the\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 28\n\n\nscope of their employment, to violate Plaintiffs’ rights. The district court’s grant of summary\njudgment to Stoiker on the conspiracy claims is AFFIRMED.\n\n d. Malicious Prosecution\n\n The Fourth Amendment begins: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,\nhouses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”\nU.S. Const. amend. IV. Amongst other protections, this guarantee affords people the right to be\nfree of unjust prosecution. See Mills v. Barnard, 869 F.3d 473, 479–80 (6th Cir. 2017).14\n\n A malicious-prosecution claim has four elements: “(1) that a criminal prosecution was\ninitiated against the plaintiff and that the defendant ma[d]e, influence[d], or participate[d] in the\ndecision to prosecute; (2) that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution;\n(3) that, as a consequence of a legal proceeding, the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of\nliberty . . . apart from the initial seizure; and (4) that the criminal proceeding must have been\nresolved in the plaintiff’s favor.”15 Id. at 480 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks\nomitted) (quoting Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 308–09 (6th Cir. 2010)).\n\n There being no dispute that Plaintiffs suffered a deprivation of liberty or that the criminal\nproceedings were resolved in their favor, we need only address the first two elements.\n\n\n\n\n 14Although we now analyze constitutional claims for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment,\n“[p]rior to January 1994 . . . this circuit analyzed [such claims] as accruing under the Fourteenth rather than the Fourth\nAmendment.” Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1006 (6th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). We ceased doing so\nafter the Supreme Court held in Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271, 273–75 (1994) that malicious-prosecution\nclaims must be asserted under the Fourth Amendment rather than the Fourteenth. In so holding, the Albright Court\nrecognized “the Fourth Amendment’s relevance to the deprivations of liberty that go hand in hand with criminal\nprosecutions.” Id. at 274 (citing Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 114 (1975)).\n 15There are two types of § 1983 claims, both sounding in the Fourth Amendment, that are sometimes referred\nto as “malicious prosecution” claims. One is for the wrongful institution of legal process (which is the type most\nproperly called a “malicious prosecution” claim) and the other is for continued detention without probable cause. See\nCleary v. Cty. of Macomb, 409 F. App’x 890, 898 (6th Cir. 2011); see also Gregory, 444 F.3d at 747–49 (stating that\nclaims for continued detention without probable cause are not properly considered “malicious prosecution” claims,\nbut recognizing that courts’ use of terminology varies). Although Plaintiffs are not always clear as to their intended\ntheory of liability, they and Stoiker state the test for, and perform their analysis under, the wrongful institution of legal\nprocess theory, and we will do the same.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 29\n\n\n i. Stoiker Influenced or Participated in the Decision to Prosecute\n\n The first element of the malicious-prosecution claim is met when an officer “could\nreasonably foresee that his misconduct would contribute to an independent decision that results in\na deprivation of liberty” and the misconduct actually does so. Sykes, 625 F.3d at 316 (quoting\nHigazy v. Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 177 (2d Cir. 2007)). This element is met when an officer\nincludes “misstatements and falsehoods in his investigatory materials” and those materials\ninfluence a prosecutor’s decision to bring charges. Id.\n\n A reasonable jury could find that Stoiker’s misconduct influenced the decision to bring\ncharges against Plaintiffs for two reasons. First, Stoiker and Staimpel “[c]onsulted with [the\nprosecutor] who issued papers charging [Plaintiffs] with [homicide].” R. 114-28, PageID 5321.\nAlthough the record does not indicate the contents of that consultation, it is reasonable to infer that\nit involved false statements about Vernon’s identification of Plaintiffs and that this consultation\ninfluenced the prosecutor’s decision to bring charges against Plaintiffs.\n\n Second, the prosecutor’s only knowledge of Vernon’s involvement when deciding to bring\ncharges was based on Vernon’s statement, a statement that a jury could reasonably find to have\nbeen fabricated by Stoiker. And the prosecutor later testified that had he known about what\nactually happened on the day of the line-up—because Stoiker and Staimpel had told him during\nconversation, or because they had drafted an accurate statement for Vernon, or because Stoiker\nhad drafted an accurate report concerning that day’s events—the prosecutor would not have\nproceeded to trial.\n\n ii. There Was a Lack of Probable Cause for the Criminal Prosecution\n\n When a grand jury returns an indictment against a defendant, this creates a “presumption\nof probable cause,” which is rebuttable by showing that:\n\n (1) [A] law-enforcement officer, in the course of setting a prosecution in motion,\n either knowingly or recklessly ma[de] false statements (such as in affidavits or\n investigative reports) or falsifie[d] or fabricate[d] evidence; (2) the false statements\n and evidence, together with any concomitant misleading omissions, [we]re material\n to the ultimate prosecution of the plaintiff; and (3) the false statements, evidence,\n and omissions d[id] not consist solely of grand-jury testimony or preparation for\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 30\n\n\n that testimony (where preparation has a meaning broad enough to encompass\n conspiring to commit perjury before the grand jury).\n\nKing v. Harwood, 852 F.3d 568, 587–88 (6th Cir. 2017).\n\n As discussed above, a reasonable jury could find that Stoiker falsified or fabricated\nevidence, and that the evidence did not consist solely of grand-jury testimony or preparation for\nthat testimony. Stoiker argues, however, that even if he fabricated Vernon’s false statement, that\nstatement could not have been material to the grand jury’s determination of probable cause, as it\nwas not presented to the grand jury. Although Vernon may have testified to the grand jury in\nconformance with his fabricated statement, Stoiker argues, it was Vernon’s testimony, not the\nearlier statement, that impacted the grand jury’s decision.\n\n But a careful reading of King shows that fabricated evidence can be material to a grand\njury’s determination of probable cause without being presented to the grand jury. If only evidence\npresented to a grand jury could be material to that grand jury’s decision, plaintiffs would be faced\nwith the Scylla and Charybdis of either admitting that the fabricated evidence was not material or\nclaiming that it was material because it was presented to the grand jury, thereby gracing the\nfabricator with the absolute immunity afforded to grand jury testimony. See id. at 589.\n\n Instead, plaintiffs can show that a fabrication was material to the grand jury’s determination\nby showing “that the officer has made knowing or reckless false statements or has falsified or\nfabricated evidence in the course of setting a prosecution in motion.” Id. Here, according to the\nprosecutor, had Stoiker not fabricated Vernon’s statement, there would have been no grand jury.\nBut even had there been one, Vernon would not have testified falsely before it. Stoiker’s\nfabrication was therefore material to the grand jury’s determination because it “was material to the\nultimate prosecution” of Plaintiffs.16 Id. at 587–88.\n\n\n\n\n 16Stoiker does not argue that there was sufficient evidence to find probable cause to prosecute Plaintiffs\nabsent Vernon’s testimony.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 31\n\n\n 2. Qualified Immunity\n\n The statute now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was originally passed in 1871. It was not\nuntil the second half of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court recognized that § 1983\nadmitted of an implicit doctrine, born of the common law, known as qualified immunity. See\nPierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 555, 557 (1967). Since then this doctrine has grown considerably,\nbut not without its critics. See, e.g., Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1162 (2018) (Sotomayor,\nJ., dissenting) (arguing that a “one-sided approach to qualified immunity transforms the doctrine\ninto an absolute shield for law enforcement officers, gutting the deterrent effect of the Fourth\nAmendment”). Qualified immunity has outgrown its original justifications, which were “rooted\nin historical analogy” and “based on the existence of common-law rules in 1871.” Wyatt v. Cole,\n504 U.S. 158, 170 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring).\n\n Responding to the many and varied suits brought under § 1983, the judiciary recrafted that\nlimited version of the doctrine of qualified immunity in an effort to protect public officials “from\nundue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of liability.” Elder v.\nHolloway, 510 U.S. 510, 514 (1994) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 806 (1982)).\nWe therefore no longer “attempt[] to locate [the qualified immunity] standard in the common law\nas it existed in 1871,” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1871 (2017) (Thomas, J., concurring), but\ninstead attempt to determine whether a defendant, by his conduct, “violate[d] clearly established\nstatutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow, 457\nU.S. at 818.\n\n At issue in this appeal is whether, in 1975, the constitutional rights allegedly violated by\nStoiker were sufficiently clearly established to deprive him of the protection of qualified immunity.\nIt is a plaintiff’s burden to show that the right at issue was clearly established. Harris v. Klare,\n902 F.3d 630, 637 (6th Cir. 2018). Although the Supreme Court “do[es] not require a case directly\non point for a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must have placed the statutory or\nconstitutional question beyond debate.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (alteration in\noriginal) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308\n(2015)). In examining “existing precedent,” “we may rely on decisions of the Supreme Court,\ndecisions of this court and courts within this circuit, and in limited instances, on decisions of other\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 32\n\n\ncircuits.” Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1006 (6th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); accord\nHearring v. Sliwowski, 712 F.3d 275, 280 (6th Cir. 2013).\n\n The Supreme Court has recognized “that officials can still be on notice that their conduct\nviolates established law even in novel factual circumstances” and has “rejected a requirement that\nprevious cases be ‘fundamentally similar’” to the facts in a case to render qualified immunity\ninapplicable. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002) (quoting United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S.\n259, 263 (1997)); see also id. at 753–54 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“Certain actions so obviously\nrun afoul of the law that an assertion of qualified immunity may be overcome even though court\ndecisions have yet to address materially similar conduct.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).\nAnd we have noted that “‘[g]eneral statements of the law’ are capable of giving clear and fair\nwarning to officers even where ‘the very action in question has [not] previously been held\nunlawful.’” Smith v. Cupp, 430 F.3d 766, 776–77 (6th Cir. 2005) (second alteration in original)\n(quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)).\n\n a. Withholding Exculpatory Evidence\n\n In 1975, it was clearly established law that prosecutorial withholding of exculpatory\nevidence violates a criminal defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. See Brady\nv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86–87 (1963). Multiple circuits had also recognized by that time that\n“Brady-derived” claims could be based on the conduct of law-enforcement officers—as distinct\nfrom prosecutors—who had allegedly withheld exculpatory evidence. See Clarke v. Burke,\n440 F.2d 853, 855 (7th Cir. 1971) (“This is not to say that there can never be a due process violation\nif the prosecutor does not know that the police has in its possession evidence possibly favorable to\nthe defendant . . . . It has been held . . . that knowledge of the police is knowledge of the prosecutor\n. . . .” (citations omitted)); Smith v. Florida, 410 F.2d 1349, 1351 (5th Cir. 1969) (“[I]t makes no\ndifference if the withholding is by the prosecutor or by officials other than the prosecutor.” (citing\nBarbee v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary, 331 F.2d 842 (4th Cir. 1964))); Barbee, 331 F.2d at 846; cf.\nJackson v. Wainwright, 390 F.2d 288, 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1968) (noting that “lower federal courts”\napplying Brady “ha[d] emphasized the harm to the defendant rather than the prosecutor’s motive\nin failing to disclose exculpatory evidence” and finding a violation of the “duty to disclose . . .\nexculpatory statements” where “there was no evidence of the prosecutor’s bad faith or of\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 33\n\n\noverreaching by the prosecution” (emphasis added)); Curran v. Delaware, 259 F.2d 707, 713 (3d\nCir. 1958) (finding a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when a police officer perjured\nhimself at trial, regardless of whether the prosecutor was aware of the perjury).\n\n In Barbee, decided the year after Brady, the Fourth Circuit addressed the habeas claim of\na man who argued his conviction violated due process because law-enforcement officers had not\ndisclosed the existence of ballistics and fingerprint reports that “cast grave doubt upon” his guilt.\nBarbee, 331 F.2d at 844. Responding to the state’s argument that the man was required, and had\nfailed, to show that the prosecutor knew about the reports, the court stated:\n\n Nor is the effect of the nondisclosure neutralized because the prosecuting attorney\n was not shown to have had knowledge of the exculpatory evidence. Failure of the\n police to reveal such material evidence in their possession is equally harmful to a\n defendant whether the information is purposely, or negligently, withheld. And it\n makes no difference if the withholding is by officials other than the prosecutor. The\n police are also part of the prosecution, and the taint on the trial is no less if they,\n rather than the State’s Attorney, were guilty of the nondisclosure. If the police\n allow the State’s Attorney to produce evidence pointing to guilt without informing\n him of other evidence in their possession which contradicts this inference, state\n officers are practicing deception not only on the State’s Attorney but on the court\n and the defendant . . . . If the police silence as to the existence of the reports resulted\n from negligence rather than guile, the deception is no less damaging.\n The duty to disclose is that of the state, which ordinarily acts through the\n prosecuting attorney; but if he too is the victim of police suppression of the material\n information, the state’s failure is not on that account excused.\n\nId. at 846 (footnotes omitted).\n\n The above cases, decided prior to Plaintiffs’ trials, make clear that the duty to disclose\nevidence falls on the state as a whole and not on one officer of the state particularly, and it was\ntherefore clearly established by the time of those trials that Stoiker had a Fourteenth Amendment\nobligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.\n\n It was also clearly established that impeachment evidence, such as the fact that a witness\nwas coerced into making a fabricated statement, qualifies as exculpatory. See Giglio v. United\nStates, 405 U.S. 150, 153–55 (1972) (holding that evidence that the government had procured an\ninformant’s testimony by suggesting he could escape prosecution through cooperating was\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 34\n\n\n“material” evidence “affecting credibility” that should have been disclosed to the defense under\nBrady).\n\n Stoiker argues that a Seventh Circuit case shows that it is not clearly established even now\nthat officers are under a Brady obligation to disclose their own or fellow officers’ fabrication of\nevidence. In Saunders-El v. Rohde, 778 F.3d 556, 558 (7th Cir. 2015), the plaintiff sued police\nofficers under Brady, alleging that the officers failed to disclose that they had severely beaten the\nplaintiff and planted his blood at a crime scene. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff had not\nalleged a violation of Brady because “Brady does not require the creation of exculpatory evidence,\nnor does it compel police officers to accurately disclose the circumstances of their investigations\nto the prosecution.” Id. at 562.\n\n Even if we were bound by Saunders-El, which we are not, it would not foreclose our\nholding. Because Brady and its progeny are concerned only with ensuring that a defendant\nreceives a fair trial, “Brady is concerned only with cases in which the government possesses\ninformation which the defendant does not.” United States v. Graham, 484 F.3d 413, 417 (6th Cir.\n2007) (citation omitted). And so if a defendant knows at the time of trial that the government has\nfabricated evidence, as in Saunders-El,17 officers do not violate Brady by failing to tell prosecutors\nthat evidence has been fabricated.18 Had Plaintiffs argued that Stoiker violated Brady only by\nfailing to disclose that Vernon’s statement was inaccurate, Stoiker’s reliance on Saunders-El might\nbe appropriate, as Plaintiffs already knew that Vernon’s statement was inaccurate. But Plaintiffs\ndid not know that Vernon’s statement had been coerced, and that fact could have been used to\nimpeach Vernon’s testimony at trial. Therefore, Stoiker had an obligation to disclose that fact to\nPlaintiffs.\n\n Finally, as discussed in section II(C)(1)(a), supra, an additional piece of exculpatory\nevidence that Stoiker may have possessed was the knowledge of Vernon’s un-coerced statement\n\n\n 17Indescribing the circumstances of the alleged fabrication of crime-scene evidence underlying his Brady\nclaim, the Saunders-El plaintiff indicated that he had known about the fabrication all along. See Saunders-El, 778 F.3d\nat 558.\n 18This does not necessarily entail that such a situation would involve no other constitutional violations, of\ncourse.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 35\n\n\nto Terpay and Farmer that he had not seen the shooting at all. That statement was exculpatory\nevidence separate from the fact that Vernon’s signed statement was false, and there is no evidence\nthat Plaintiffs knew of Vernon’s exculpatory statement. Therefore, even if Saunders-El were\ncontrolling, we would hold that Plaintiffs had alleged a violation of clearly established rights with\nregard to Stoiker’s alleged withholding of exculpatory evidence of which Plaintiffs were not\naware.\n\n Stoiker is not entitled to qualified immunity on the withholding-of-evidence claims.\n\n b. Fabricating Evidence\n\n It is difficult to countenance any argument that a law-enforcement officer in 1975 would\nnot be “on notice [his] conduct [was] unlawful” when coercing a witness into perjuring himself in\na capital trial. Hope, 536 U.S. at 739 (citation omitted). The obvious injustice inherent in\nfabricating evidence to convict three innocent men of a capital offense put Stoiker on notice that\nhis conduct was unlawful. Cf. id. at 745 (stating, in evaluating qualified immunity in the Eighth\nAmendment context, that “[t]he obvious cruelty inherent in [tying a prisoner to a hitching post “for\nan extended period of time in a position that was painful, and under circumstances that were both\ndegrading and dangerous”] should have provided respondents with some notice that their alleged\nconduct violated [the prisoner’s] constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment”).\n\n More concretely, as far back as 1935, the Supreme Court recognized that the introduction\nof fabricated evidence violates “the fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our\ncivil and political institutions.” Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935) (citing Hebert v.\nLouisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316 (1926)). And in 1942, the Supreme Court held that when a witness\nperjures himself because of threats from police officers, the defendant suffers “a deprivation of\nrights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.” Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 216 (1942).\n\n The only difference between those cases and the present one is that those cases involved\nthe use of fabricated evidence at trial, whereas this one involves the use of fabricated evidence to\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 36\n\n\naffect a jury in a manner other than by introducing the evidence at trial. 19 However, we have\nrecognized that a Fourth Amendment claim based on the fabrication of evidence does not require\nthat “false testimony [have been] given at trial.” Spurlock, 167 F.3d at 1007. And we can see no\nprincipled distinction, for purposes of qualified immunity, between such a claim and Plaintiffs’\nclaims here that they were deprived of their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights through the\nuse of fabricated evidence. The alleged misconduct here is the use of the falsified statement to\nprocure testimony in conformance with it—the same type of misconduct that we have previously\nfound supported recovery for a constitutional tort, irrespective of the stage at which the fabrication\ntainted the proceeding. See id.\n\n As far as clearly established law in 1975 is concerned, several months before the events at\nissue in this case, this court stated that Mooney “made it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment right\nto due process prohibits a knowing and deliberate use by a state of perjured evidence in order to\nobtain a conviction.” Burks v. Egeler, 512 F.2d 221, 224 (6th Cir. 1975). More recently, we have\ncited Brady, Pyle, and Mooney in finding that a defendant officer could not “seriously contend that\na reasonable police officer would not know that [his] actions [including fabricating evidence] were\ninappropriate and performed in violation of an individual’s constitutional . . . rights.” Spurlock,\n167 F.3d at 1005–06 (also citing Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 274 (1994)). In Spurlock (a\nmalicious-prosecution case), the defendant argued that Albright, and the Sixth Circuit case\nexplicitly finding that malicious prosecution violated clearly established rights, had been decided\nafter his conduct and therefore did not put him on notice. See Spurlock, 167 F.3d at 1006 n.19\n(discussing generally Albright and Smith v. Williams, 78 F.3d 585, 1996 WL 99329 (6th Cir. 1996)\n(unpublished table opinion)). Rejecting that argument, we stated that “the fundamental principle\nthat an individual has a constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution . . . was clearly\nestablished well before either of [the] cases [cited by the defendant] was decided.” Id. The\nreasoning in Spurlock is sound, and we follow it in holding that Stoiker was on notice in 1975 that\nit was unlawful for him to fabricate evidence.\n\n\n\n 19Although we assume for the purpose of this analysis that the allegedly fabricated evidence did not affect\nthe proceedings through being used at trial, we again note that Vernon’s statement was used by defense counsel at\nJackson’s trial, and a reasonable jury could find that the statement was considered by Jackson’s jury in some way.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 37\n\n\n Stoiker is not entitled to qualified immunity on the fabrication-of-evidence claims.\n\n c. Malicious Prosecution\n\n Stoiker argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs “fail to identify\na pre-1975 case that would clearly establish that a police officer could be held liable for malicious\nprosecution where he did not actively participate in the prosecution [and] did not testify before the\ngrand jury or at trial.” Stoiker Br. at 51. Stoiker’s argument admits of two interpretations, one of\nwhich is possibly valid but has false premises and the other of which has true premises but is\ninvalid.\n\n Stoiker might be arguing that the state of malicious prosecution law in 1975 was in flux\nand that it was not clear at that time that he could be liable under a malicious prosecution cause of\naction. That may be true, but it does not follow that he is protected by qualified immunity.\nWhether a defendant is protected by qualified immunity turns not on whether the defendant was\non notice that his actions satisfied the elements of a particular cause of action, but instead on\nwhether the defendant was on notice that his actions violated the laws of the United States.\nRecently, when presented with a similar argument to Stoiker’s, we responded:\n\n [The defendant] spends a considerable portion of his brief illustrating why\n it is not clear that he should be liable for malicious prosecution, thus reasoning that\n he is entitled to qualified immunity. Yet, his claim that the contours of our\n jurisprudence concerning malicious prosecution are not entirely clear misses the\n point. Our inquiry is whether [the defendant’s] alleged actions—arresting and\n detaining [the plaintiff] based on false pretenses and then seeking an arrest warrant\n based on these false statements—violated [the plaintiff’s] clearly established\n constitutional rights. We conclude that they did.\n\nMiller v. Maddox, 866 F.3d 386, 395 (6th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2622 (2018). In\nshort, “the sine qua non of the ‘clearly established’ inquiry is ‘fair warning,’” Baynes v. Cleland,\n799 F.3d 600, 612–13 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 741), and we ask only “whether\nit would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he\nconfronted,” id. at 610 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001)).\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 38\n\n\n Stoiker’s argument may, on the other hand, be that it was not clear in 1975 that an officer\nwho fabricated evidence but did not testify for the prosecution had violated the laws of the United\nStates. If this were true, he would be protected by qualified immunity. It is not, and he is not.\n\n For Plaintiffs’ claims to survive summary judgment, it must have been clearly established\nthat where an officer fabricates evidence against a defendant and then withholds exculpatory\nevidence from the prosecution, but does not testify at trial or a grand jury hearing, he is\n“influenc[ing]” the decision to initiate the prosecution in a way that violates the defendant’s\nconstitutional rights. Mills v. Barnard, 869 F.3d 473, 480 (6th Cir. 2017).\n\n Stoiker cites no case requiring testimony as an element of a § 1983 claim for malicious\nprosecution and no case suggesting that testifying is required in order to influence the decision to\nprosecute. To the contrary, this court held long before 1975 that if officers arrested a suspect\nwithout a warrant (in violation of state law), and “subjected [that suspect] to fraudulent trial in a\ncriminal case” that resulted in wrongful conviction, the officers caused the suspect “a deprivation\nof [her] liberty without due process of law.” McShane v. Moldovan, 172 F.2d 1016, 1019 (6th Cir.\n1949). The court in McShane made no mention of whether the officers had testified against the\nsuspect, and with good cause: the crux of the violation is the institution of judicial processes\nwithout probable cause, which does not require a testimonial act.\n\n In conjunction with the cases cited in section II(C)(2)(b), supra, McShane is sufficient to\nhave clearly established before May 1975 that an officer need not testify in order to violate a\ndefendant’s right to due process. That the phrase “malicious prosecution” was not used in that\ncase to describe the cause of action is immaterial; what matters are the actions allegedly taken by\nStoiker, not the name we give to the claim used to seek redress for those actions. Stoiker is\ntherefore not entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious-prosecution claims.\n\n 3. Conclusion\n\n For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment\nto Stoiker as to the Fourteenth Amendment claims for fabrication of evidence and for withholding\nof exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady, and the Fourth Amendment claims for malicious\nprosecution. But we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment as to the conspiracy claims.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 39\n\n\nD. Cleveland’s Motion for Summary Judgment\n\n The cause of action created by § 1983 may be exercised only against a “person\nwho . . . causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the\njurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the\nConstitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Supreme Court has interpreted the word “person”\nbroadly, and certain polities, including municipalities, are considered persons for purposes of\n§ 1983 liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).\n\n Although “person” has been given a wide meaning under § 1983, when the person is a\nmunicipality, liability attaches only under a narrow set of circumstances: “A municipality may not\nbe held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory—in other words, ‘solely because it\nemploys a tortfeasor.’” D’Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378, 388–89 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting\nMonell, 436 U.S. at 691). Instead, a plaintiff must show that “through its deliberate conduct, the\nmunicipality was the ‘moving force’ behind the injury alleged.” Alman v. Reed, 703 F.3d 887,\n903 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997)). A plaintiff\ndoes this by showing that the municipality had a “policy or custom” that caused the violation of\nhis rights. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694.\n\n There are four methods of showing the municipality had such a policy or custom: the\nplaintiff may prove “(1) the existence of an illegal official policy or legislative enactment; (2) that\nan official with final decision making authority ratified illegal actions; (3) the existence of a policy\nof inadequate training or supervision; or (4) the existence of a custom of tolerance or acquiescence\nof federal rights violations.” Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 478 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation\nomitted).\n\n Plaintiffs argue that they have provided evidence sufficient to make out a Monell claim\nunder the first theory, as GPO 19-73 caused the violation of their Brady rights, and the third theory,\nas Cleveland’s failure to train its officers in Brady caused the violation of their Brady rights.\nCleveland disagrees, as did the district court.20\n\n\n 20Plaintiffsalso argue that they have a third Monell claim based on Cleveland’s failure to adopt an adequate\npolicy to prevent Brady violations. The district court ruled against Plaintiffs on this theory, finding that they had not\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 40\n\n\n 1. Official Policy\n\n “[T]o satisfy the Monell requirements a plaintiff must ‘identify the policy, connect the\npolicy to the city itself and show that the particular injury was incurred because of the execution\nof that policy.’” Garner v. Memphis Police Dep’t, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting\nCoogan v. City of Wixom, 820 F.2d 170, 176 (6th Cir. 1987)).\n\n When proceeding under the first theory of Monell liability, under which a plaintiff must\nshow an official policy or legislative enactment, the plaintiff must show that there were “formal\nrules or understandings—often but not always committed to writing—that [were] intended to, and\n[did], establish fixed plans of action to be followed under similar circumstances consistently and\nover time.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480–81 (1986) (emphasis added).\n\n Plaintiffs argue that GPO 19-73 reflects just such a policy: it was a formal rule; it was\npromulgated by Cleveland; and it was illegal because it authorized Brady violations. Cleveland\nagrees that GPO 19-73 was a policy and that it was promulgated by Cleveland but argues that GPO\n19-73 is consistent with Brady and, therefore, could not cause Brady violations.21\n\n GPO 19-73 read in pertinent part as follows:\n\n TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT\n In a letter to this Department, County Prosecutor John T. Corrigan has defined the\n legal rights of defense attorneys and courts to statements, reports and other items\n in criminal cases. His letter, as a part of this order, shall be considered an integral\n\n\nestablished that Cleveland had failed to adopt adequate policies to train officers in Brady’s requirements. Jackson v.\nCity of Cleveland, CASE NO. 1:15CV989, 2017 WL 3336607, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017). We decline to analyze\nthis theory separately. Plaintiffs cite no Sixth Circuit or Supreme Court case in support of their theory that they have\na Monell claim—separate from their failure-to-train claim—based on Cleveland’s unconstitutional failure to adopt a\npolicy. Instead, the relevant cases they cite are failure-to-train cases. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 391\n(1989); Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 755 (6th Cir. 2006); Miller v. Calhoun Cty., 408 F.3d 803, 816–\n17 (6th Cir. 2005). That makes sense: the harm alleged and the analysis required under the failure-to-train theory are\nfunctionally indistinguishable from the harm Plaintiffs allege and the analysis they wish us to conduct under the\nfailure-to-adopt-a-policy theory. Indeed, the district court stated that to prevail on their failure-to-adopt theory,\nPlaintiffs needed to show Cleveland was deliberately indifferent to the high likelihood of violations in the absence of\na policy. See Jackson, 2017 WL 3336607, at *4 (citing Miller, 408 F.3d at 816–17). As we discuss below, Plaintiffs\nmust make the same showing for their failure-to-train claim.\n 21Cleveland also argues that Plaintiffs cannot show that GPO 19-73 caused any Brady violations because\nthey cannot demonstrate any Brady violations to begin with. As discussed in section II(C)(1)(a), supra, that argument\nis unavailing.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 41\n\n\n part of criminal case preparations procedures and all members shall comply with\n its provisions.\n\nR. 101-7, PageID 1630.\n\n The letter from the County Prosecutor, incorporated into GPO 19-73, read in pertinent part\nas follows:\n\n The Ohio Supreme Court has recently promulgated Criminal Rules of\n Procedure . . . . Particularly, Rule 16 is going to be the concern of police\n departments and prosecutors.\n ....\n NO POLICE DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED OR SHALL GIVE TO DEFENSE\n COUNSEL AND/OR ANY COURT ANY RECORD, PAPER, STATEMENT,\n REPORT OR TANGIBLE OBJECT OF A CRIMINAL CASE.\n Under proper circumstances under this rule, by application to the Prosecuting\n Attorney and/or the court, the defense counsel may be entitled to the following:\n\n 1. Statement of a defendant or co-defendant, written, recorded, or a\n summary of an oral statement.\n 2. Defendant’s prior felony record.\n 3. Inspection of [physical evidence] material to the preparation of the\n defense or intended for use by the Prosecuting Attorney as evidence.\n 4. Reports of results of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests\n or experiments.\n 5. Names and addresses of witnesses.\n 6. Evidence favorable to the defendant.\n\n EXCEPTION TO THE FOREGOING:\n The foregoing does not authorize the discovery or the inspection of reports,\n memoranda, or other internal documents made by the Prosecuting Attorney or his\n agents (police departments are his agents) in connection with the investigation or\n prosecution of the case, or of statements made by witnesses or prospective witnesses\n to state agents.\n\nId. (emphases added).\n\n Plaintiffs argue that GPO 19-73 is appropriately read as providing that defendants are\ngenerally entitled to favorable evidence, but that the entitlement does not apply if the favorable\nevidence is in the form of witness statements. The individual Defendants were therefore acting in\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 42\n\n\nconformance with GPO 19-73 when they failed to turn over to prosecutors Vernon’s un-coerced,\nexculpatory statement that he had not seen the shooting, even though this withholding violated\nPlaintiffs’ Brady rights.\n\n In rebuttal, Cleveland argues, first, that the language of GPO 19-73 did not permit officers\nto withhold exculpatory evidence from prosecutors, and, second, that even if it did, it must be read\nin conjunction with other rules by which officers were bound in order to determine whether\nCleveland had a policy of permitting the withholding of exculpatory evidence from prosecutors.\n\n Because a city may be liable under Monell for a policy of permitting constitutional\nviolations regardless of whether the policy is written, see Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 480–81, we ask\nwhether GPO 19-73 and the other rules were inconsistent with a policy of withholding evidence\nin violation of Brady. If they were not inconsistent, then a genuine issue of material fact exists as\nto whether Cleveland had such a policy, and summary judgment was improper on Plaintiffs’ first\nMonell theory.\n\n a. The Text of GPO 19-73\n\n Cleveland notes that the only language in GPO 19-73 discussing officers’ disclosure\nobligations simply made it clear that they were not permitted to give any physical evidence directly\nto a defendant; it did not say officers were permitted to withhold exculpatory evidence from\nprosecutors. Under this reading of GPO 19-73, the purpose of the order was to ensure that officers\ndid not give evidence directly to defendants and, perhaps as something of an addendum, let officers\nknow what prosecutors might have to do with the evidence officers gave them. The section\npermitting disclosure of exculpatory witness statements, after all, argues Cleveland, was prefaced\nby the statement that “by application to the Prosecuting Attorney and/or the court, the defense\ncounsel may be entitled” to various evidence, and that language appears to concern the interaction\nbetween prosecutors and defendants, not officers and prosecutors.\n\n Cleveland’s interpretation of GPO 19-73 may be plausible, but it is not the only reasonable\ninterpretation. The incorporated letter from the County Prosecutor informed Cleveland police\nofficers that “Rule 16 is going to be the concern of police departments and prosecutors,” not just\nprosecutors. (emphasis added). The incorporated letter recreated in part the text of Rule 16, which\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 43\n\n\ndealt only with what sorts of evidence required disclosure, not with who would do the disclosing.\nThat GPO 19-73 told officers that Rule 16 was their concern and provided the text of that Rule,\nwhich described which evidence must be disclosed, could suggest that GPO 19-73 was\npromulgated for the purpose of ensuring officers knew what particular evidence they had to\ndisclose to prosecutors so that the prosecutors could then disclose that evidence to the defense.\nUnder this reading, GPO 19-73 did more than simply inform officers that they should not give\nevidence directly to defendants; it also served as the directive to officers as to what evidence they\nshould, and should not, give to prosecutors. Particular to the last point, the “EXCEPTION TO\nTHE FOREGOING” provision could be read to direct officers not to turn over to prosecutors the\ndocuments described in that provision, which included “statements made by witnesses or\nprospective witnesses to state agents.”\n\n Therefore, one reasonable reading of GPO 19-73 is that it (1) spoke to police officers about\ntheir disclosure obligations and (2) informed them that they did not need to disclose exculpatory\nwitness statements to the Prosecutor’s Office. Because GPO 19-73 can be read as consistent with\na policy of not disclosing exculpatory witness statements, we turn to the other written rules to see\nwhether any of those foreclosed such a policy.\n\n b. Other Rules\n\n Cleveland’s second argument for why a reasonable jury could not read GPO 19-73 as\nembodying a policy of allowing officers to withhold exculpatory witness statements from\nprosecutors is stronger, but ultimately unavailing. Instead of looking at GPO 19-73 in a vacuum,\nCleveland urges us to consider the text of GPO 19-73 in the context of other rules and regulations.\nThese other sources fall into two groups: sections of the Division of Police’s Manual of Rules and\nthe full text of Rule 16.\n\n i. The Manual\n\n The Manual contained a number of rules that were applicable to all Cleveland police\nofficers in 1975. Cleveland points to four rules as requiring, when read in conjunction with GPO\n19-73, that officers disclose exculpatory witness statements to prosecutors. While all laudable,\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 44\n\n\neach of these policies can, however, reasonably be interpreted as consistent with a reading of GPO\n19-73 that permitted officers to withhold exculpatory witness statements from prosecutors.\n\n Rule 14\n Case Preparation and Fraud Unit\n ....\n (2) The officer in charge shall cause statements to be taken from persons\n brought to the Unit in the course of criminal investigations; and shall see that such\n statements are properly filed and preserved. These statements shall be available\n only to the officers and members of the Division of Police who are interested in the\n presentation of a particular case, to the office of the County Prosecutor or the Law\n Department of the City of Cleveland. Under no circumstances shall they be given\n or exhibited to any other person without the written consent of the Chief of Police.\nR. 102-2, PageID 1910–11.\n\n Rule 14 only applied to statements given by persons brought to the Case Preparation and\nFraud Unit, and there was no requirement that all witnesses be brought to that unit when giving a\nstatement.22 Nor did it require officers to affirmatively disclose exculpatory statements to\nprosecutors; it required only that detectives make statements available. This reading is consistent\nwith testimony that it was the practice of Cleveland detectives to withhold evidence not contained\nin arrest reports, witness forms, or written statements unless it was specifically requested by\nprosecutors.\n\n Rule 66 [No Title]\n (1) Officers and members prosecuting persons charged with a crime shall\n thoroughly familiarize themselves with all of the facts and details concerning such\n case, so that all of the evidence may be properly presented to the court.\n\nId. at PageID 1941.\n\n Rule 66 said nothing about disclosure of evidence to prosecutors, much less exculpatory\nevidence. More importantly, it only required familiarity with the facts and details of a case insofar\nas such familiarity was required to “properly present” those facts to a court. As discussed above,\nGPO 19-73 can reasonably be interpreted as not requiring officers to disclose exculpatory witness\n\n\n\n 22Vernon does not appear to have been brought to the Case Preparation and Fraud Unit.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 45\n\n\nstatements to prosecutors for disclosure in turn to defendants (or, presumably, to courts). Read in\nconjunction with GPO 19-73, then, Rule 66 can reasonably be interpreted as not applying to\nexculpatory witness statements.\n\n Rule 77 [No Title]\n (1) Officers and members shall report on all matters referred to or investigated\n by them. Such reports may be either verbal or written, as the officer in charge may\n direct.\n (2) They shall, before reporting off duty, make such written reports as may be\n required on all matters coming to their attention or assigned to them for\n investigation. If the investigation has not been completed before he reports [sic]\n off duty, he shall make a report stating the progress made.\n (3) He shall address his written reports to his superior officer and shall sign the\n reports, giving his full name and rank, title or number. When required, such reports\n shall be examined and signed by a superior officer. Written reports shall be\n forwarded to the commanding officer.\n\nId. at PageID 1945–46.\n\n Rule 77 required that officers make reports concerning their cases. It did not require that\nsuch reports contain all exculpatory information that they may have learned. Importantly, it did\nnot require that any reports be disclosed to prosecutors, and it allowed reports to be made verbally\nto a superior officer, a method well suited to the withholding of information from prosecutors.\n\n Rule 78 [No Title]\n Written and verbal reports, testimony in court and conversation of any kind\n affecting the Division of Police, its officers, members, employees or persons under\n its jurisdiction shall be truthful and unbiased.\n\nId. at PageID 1946.\n\n Even read in conjunction with GPO 19-73 and the other rules discussed herein, the\nlimitations of Rule 78 render it incapable of carrying the weight with which Cleveland burdens it.\nIt required not that all reports be complete but only that they be truthful and unbiased. 23 Nor did\n\n\n 23Consider, for example, two officers who have coerced a witness into making what they believe to be a\ntruthful statement: a report detailing that statement but excluding the coercion would comport with Rule 78. More\ninsidiously, consider two officers who have coerced a witness into making a statement that they know to be false and\nwho file a report stating that the witness made that statement. That report would be both true and unbiased and\ntherefore consistent with Rule 78: the witness did, after all, make the (false) statement contained in the report.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 46\n\n\nit require that any reports, which may have been made verbally to a superior officer, be disclosed\nto prosecutors.\n\n None of the rules contained within the Manual, taken individually or collectively, are\ninconsistent with an interpretation of GPO 19-73 that permits officers to withhold exculpatory\ninformation from prosecutors. These rules can be read by a reasonable jury as consistent with a\npolicy of permitting the withholding of exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady.\n\n ii. Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 16\n\n Cleveland also argues that the full text of Rule 16 made clear that defendants were entitled\nto all exculpatory evidence, including witness statements. The version of Rule 16 in force in 1975\nread in pertinent part as follows:\n\n (B) Disclosure of evidence by the prosecuting attorney.\n (1) Information subject to disclosure.\n ....\n (f) Disclosure of evidence favorable to defendant.\n [description of exculpatory evidence]\n (g) In camera inspection of witness’ [sic] statement.\n [description of procedure for in camera inspection of witness\n statements]\n (2) Information not subject to disclosure.\n Except as provided in subsections (B)(1)(a), (b), (d), (f), and (g), this\n rule does not authorize the discovery or inspection of reports,\n memoranda, or other internal documents made by the prosecuting\n attorney or his agents in connection with the investigation or\n prosecution of the case, or of statements made by witnesses or\n prospective witnesses to state agents.\n\nProposed Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, 46 Ohio BAR 817, 849–52 (1973) (emphases\nadded).\n\n Unlike GPO 19-73 and the rules in the Manual, Rule 16 made it quite clear that defendants\nwere entitled to exculpatory witness reports. Rule 16(B)(2) excepted witness statements from the\ngeneral disclosure requirements, using language almost identical to that used in GPO 19-73.\nUnlike GPO 19-73, however, Rule 16(B)(2) included an additional clause, excepting exculpatory\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 47\n\n\nwitness statements from the exception for witness statements generally. Rule 16(B)(2) thereby\nplaced exculpatory witness statements back into the universe of mandatory disclosure. As a result,\nthe full text of Rule 16 made it clear that prosecutors were obligated to disclose all exculpatory\nwitness statements to defendants.\n\n This fact does not, however, save Cleveland, at least not at this stage of the litigation.\nCleveland has provided no evidence that Cleveland required that its officers follow the official\nversion of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, that those rules were followed by Cleveland\nofficers, or that Cleveland officers were even aware of those rules. There is evidence, of course,\nthat Cleveland officers were bound by Rule 16: GPO 19-73 can reasonably be interpreted as\ndirecting that Cleveland officers follow the requirements of Rule 16. But GPO 19-73 could be\nread as directing Cleveland officers to follow a modified version of Rule 16—the version included\nin GPO 19-73.24\n\n And that version differed in at least one material way from the official Rule 16. Both GPO\n19-73 and the official Rule 16 included a paragraph excepting witness statements from the general\ndisclosure requirements. But although, as mentioned, that paragraph in the official Rule 16\ncontained an additional clause in paragraph (B)(2) excepting (by reference to the requirements of\n(B)(1)(f) and (g)) exculpatory witness statements from that exception—and the paragraph in the\nofficial Rule thereby required that exculpatory witness statements be disclosed—the version of\nRule 16 in GPO 19-73 omitted the clause in that paragraph excepting exculpatory witness\nstatements. The paragraph in the version of Rule 16 included in GPO 19-73 merely provided:\n\n The foregoing [disclosure requirements] do[] not authorize the discovery or\n inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal documents made by the\n Prosecuting Attorney or his agents (police departments are his agents) in connection\n with the investigation or prosecution of the case, or of statements made by\n witnesses or prospective witnesses to state agents.\n\n\n\n\n 24GPO 19-73 did not indicate that the version of Rule 16 it included was in any way different from the official\nRule 16 or suggest that officers either consult the official text of Rule 16 or consult prosecutors as to the duties of\nofficers or prosecutors under Rule 16.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 48\n\n\nR. 101-7, PageID 1630. It was this modified version of Rule 16—the one that could plausibly be\ninterpreted as allowing the withholding of exculpatory witness statements—by which a reasonable\njury could find Cleveland officers were bound.\n\n c. Conclusion\n\n GPO 19-73 and the rules in Cleveland’s police manual, read together, could be understood\nto authorize Cleveland officers to withhold exculpatory witness statements from prosecutors. It is\nfor a jury to consider GPO 19-73 and the rules in the Manual in light of Cleveland’s actual practices\nand determine whether Cleveland had a policy of permitting Brady violations. Because Cleveland\ndoes not contest that it promulgated GPO 19-73 or that the individual Defendants were acting in\nconformance with GPO 19-73 when they withheld Vernon’s exculpatory statements, a reasonable\njury could find Cleveland liable under Monell. See Garner, 8 F.3d at 364–65.\n\n Because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Cleveland had a policy of\npermitting Brady violations, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Cleveland on\nPlaintiffs’ first Monell theory was improper.\n\n 2. Failure to Train\n\n Plaintiffs also argue that in 1975, Cleveland had “a policy of inadequate training or\nsupervision” of its officers as to their obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady.\nBurgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 478 (6th Cir. 2013).\n\n In order to show that a municipality is liable for a failure to train its employees, a plaintiff\n“must establish that: 1) the City’s training program was inadequate for the tasks that officers must\nperform; 2) the inadequacy was the result of the City’s deliberate indifference; and 3) the\ninadequacy was closely related to or actually caused the injury.” Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d\n461, 469 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1046 (6th Cir. 1992)).\n\n Cleveland argues that Plaintiffs lack evidence sufficient for a jury to find that either of the\nfirst two requirements is met. We address each requirement in turn.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 49\n\n\n a. Adequacy of Cleveland’s Brady Training\n\n When determining whether a municipality has adequately trained its employees,\n“the focus must be on adequacy of the training program in relation to the tasks the particular\nofficers must perform.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 (1989).\n\n Plaintiffs argue that Cleveland’s training program was deficient in that it failed to train\nofficers in their Brady obligations and that, to the degree that those officers received training in\nthe disclosure of evidence to prosecutors, they were trained to withhold exculpatory evidence.\nCleveland disagrees, citing deposition testimony to show that officers received official training in\ntheir disclosure obligations as well as unofficial on-the-job training in their disclosure obligations.\nThe district court agreed with Cleveland.\n\n It is undisputed that Cleveland officers received, and were trained in, the Manual. But as\ndiscussed in section II(D)(1)(b)(i), supra, those rules could be read as insufficient to inform\nofficers of their disclosure obligations, as none of the rules in the Manual explicitly mandated\ndisclosure of exculpatory witness statements to prosecutors. The only rule from the Manual that\ncame close to requiring disclosure of witness statements to prosecutors was Rule 14, which applied\nonly to witness statements made to the Case Preparation and Fraud Unit, and it only required that\nthose statements be available to prosecutors, not that they be proactively disclosed.\n\n Cleveland presents deposition testimony that “in the police academy . . . [y]ou were told to\ngive [exculpatory evidence] to . . . a prosecutor” and that “Cleveland police officers are trained\nand instructed to turn over the entire product of their investigation to the prosecutor.” R. 103,\nPageID 3664, 3672.\n\n Cleveland also presents evidence that officers were trained on the job to disclose evidence.\nOne officer testified that although the rule was not always followed, “the rule was, you should turn\nover all evidence acquired in an investigation to the prosecution.” R. 104, PageID 3949–50. That\nofficer also testified:\n\n Police officers that conduct interviews are instructed to write down the statement\n as close to what the witness said as possible, whether it is good or bad. But it is\n part of what was said, and it needs to be, the entire thing needs to be presented to\n the prosecutor, the entire thing, not parts of it, the entire thing.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 50\n\n\nId. at PageID 3972.\n\n But Plaintiffs provide testimony that conflicts with Cleveland’s account of the training\nreceived, both in the academy and on the job. One former officer testified that he was not “taught\nanything at police academy about police officers’ obligation to disclose Brady evidence” and that\nhe did not remember having “ever attend[ed] any training concerning police officers’ obligation\nto disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.” R. 114-20, PageID 5127–29.\n\n Another former officer testified that he could not recall having ever “attend[ed] any course,\nor receive[d] any training in which [he] learned that officers have an obligation to disclose\nexculpatory evidence to criminal defendants or prosecutors.” R. 114-35, PageID 5492–93.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 51\n\n\n A third former officer testified, “As far as training, I would have to say no” training was\nprovided teaching officers they were required “to place any witness statements in the official file\nor otherwise make them available to criminal defendants, defense counsels, and prosecutors.”\nR. 102, PageID 1776. He also testified that there was “[n]o specific training” requiring police\ndetectives “to disclose exculpatory evidence.” Id. at PageID 1777.\n\n The district court interpreted these statements as indicating only that no official training\nhad been provided, not that no on-the-job training had been provided. Jackson v. City of Cleveland,\nCASE NO. 1:15CV989, 2017 WL 3336607, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017). We think this a\ncramped interpretation of these statements. One officer testified that he could not recall having\n“receive[d] any training in which [he] learned that officers have an obligation to disclose\nexculpatory evidence.” (emphasis added). Another testified that he received “no [training] to place\nany witness statements in the official file.” (emphasis added). A reasonable jury could interpret\nthis testimony as indicating that officers received no training, on-the-job or otherwise, in their\nBrady obligations generally or in their obligation to provide witness statements to prosecutors.\n\n There is therefore a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Cleveland’s training of its\nofficers in their disclosure obligations was sufficient, and summary judgment was inappropriate\nas to this issue. See Burgess, 735 F.3d at 471.\n\n b. Cleveland’s Deliberate Indifference\n\n “[D]eliberate indifference is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a municipal\nactor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action.” Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown,\n520 U.S. 397, 410 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In other words, the risk of a\nconstitutional violation arising as a result of the inadequacies in the municipal policy must be\n‘plainly obvious.’” Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 752 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Bd.\nof Cty. Comm’rs, 520 U.S. at 412).\n\n A plaintiff may meet this standard by showing either (1) “prior instances of\nunconstitutional conduct demonstrating that the City had notice that the training was deficient and\nlikely to cause injury but ignored it” or (2) “evidence of a single violation of federal rights,\naccompanied by a showing that the City had failed to train its employees to handle recurring\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 52\n\n\nsituations presenting an obvious potential for such a violation.” Campbell v. City of Springboro,\n700 F.3d 779, 794 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Plinton v. Cty. of Summit, 540 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir.\n2008)).\n\n Plaintiffs do not contend that they can show Cleveland’s failure to train was deliberately\nindifferent via the first method.25 Instead, Plaintiffs argue that they satisfy the second method of\nshowing deliberate indifference because the “likelihood that the situation [i.e., a situation requiring\npolice to handle exculpatory evidence] will recur and the predictability that an officer lacking\nspecific tools to handle that situation will violate citizens’ rights” mean that failing to train officers\nin their disclosure obligations demonstrates deliberate indifference to the “highly predictable\nconsequence” that untrained officers will violate Brady. Jackson Br. at 65 (quoting Bd. of Cty.\nComm’rs, 520 U.S. at 409–10).\n\n Plaintiffs cite Gregory in support of their conclusion. In Gregory, the plaintiff presented\nevidence that the defendant municipality had failed to train its officers in the handling of\nexculpatory evidence. See 444 F.3d at 753–54. This court reversed a grant of summary judgment\nto the municipality, holding that a “custom of failing to train its officers on the handling of\nexculpatory materials is sufficient to establish the requisite fault on the part of the [municipality]”\nfor a deliberate-indifference claim. Id. at 754 (citing Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 520 U.S. at 407).\n\n Cleveland attempts to distinguish Gregory on the ground that in Gregory, the plaintiff had\npresented evidence sufficient for a jury to find that the defendant municipality had failed to train\nits officers, while in this case, Cleveland argues that the “undisputed evidence in the record\nestablishes that the detectives in the City’s Homicide Detective Bureau received on-the-job\ntraining about the evidence that they were required to turn over to the prosecutor.” Cleveland Br.\nat 48. But, as discussed above, the evidence is not undisputed. Plaintiffs have provided testimony\nsufficient for a jury to find that Cleveland did not in fact train its officers in their disclosure\n\n\n\n\n 25Findingthat Plaintiffs had not shown Cleveland provided inadequate training to its officers, the district\ncourt did not address whether Plaintiffs could make out the deliberate-indifference element by either method. See\nJackson, 2017 WL 3336607, at *5.\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 53\n\n\nobligations. Gregory therefore controls, and there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to\nfind that Cleveland was deliberately indifferent to the risk of Brady violations.\n\n 3. Conclusion\n\n Plaintiffs having shown that there are genuine issues of material fact both as to whether\nCleveland had an official policy of permitting the withholding of exculpatory witness statements\nfrom prosecutors and as to whether Cleveland had a policy of failing to train its officers in their\ndisclosure obligations, summary judgment was inappropriate on the Monell claims. See Burgess,\n735 F.3d at 471.26 We therefore REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to\nCleveland as to those claims.\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n In 1940, then-Attorney General Robert H. Jackson admonished prosecutors: “Your\npositions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and\nvigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically\nloses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.” 27 In the present case, by contrast, one\nlaw-enforcement officer testified that “winning the case was what it was all about. It wasn’t about\nwhat was fair, it wasn’t about what was honest, it was about winning.” R. 104, PageID 3967–68.\nIf that sentiment explains the circumstances of Plaintiffs’ convictions, then those convictions were\nthe result of a process that was the very antithesis of Jackson’s famous admonition.\n\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to\nStoiker as to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for conspiracy to fabricate evidence and withhold\nexculpatory evidence. We REVERSE and REMAND the district court’s (1) judgment on the\npleadings for Cleveland as to Plaintiffs’ indemnification claims; (2) denial of Plaintiffs’ motions\nto amend their complaints to substitute the administrator of the estates of the deceased Defendants\nas a party in their place; (3) grant of summary judgment to Stoiker as to the § 1983 claims for\n\n\n 26A failure-to-train claim under Monell also requires showing that the failure to train “was closely related to\nor actually caused [Plaintiffs’] injury,” Ciminillo, 434 F.3d at 469, but Cleveland does not dispute that element.\n 27Robert H. Jackson, Attorney Gen. of the U.S., Address at the Second Annual Conference of United States\nAttorneys: The Federal Prosecutor (Apr. 1, 1940).\n\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 54\n\n\nwithholding of exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady, fabrication of evidence, and malicious\nprosecution; and (4) grant of summary judgment to Cleveland as to the Monell claims.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Ricky JACKSON (17-3840); Kwame Ajamu, Fka Ronnie Bridgeman, and Wiley Edward Bridgeman (17-3843), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND; Jerold Englehart; Karen Lamendola, Guardian Ad Litem on Behalf of Frank Stoiker; Estate of Eugene Terpay, Administrator; Estate of James T. Farmer, Administrator; Estate of John Staimpel, Administrator, Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-20\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0095p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n RICKY JACKSON (17-3840); KWAME AJAMU, fka ┐\\n Ronnie Bridgeman, and WILEY EDWARD BRIDGEMAN │\\n (17-3843), │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants, │\\n │\\n > Nos. 17-3840/3843\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n CITY OF CLEVELAND; JEROLD ENGLEHART; KAREN │\\n LAMENDOLA, Guardian Ad Litem on behalf of Frank │\\n Stoiker; ESTATE OF EUGENE TERPAY, Administrator; │\\n ESTATE OF JAMES T. FARMER, Administrator; ESTATE │\\n OF JOHN STAIMPEL, Administrator,\\n │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\\n No. 1:15-cv-00989—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: June 14, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 20, 2019\\n\\n Before: ROGERS and BUSH, Circuit Judges.*\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Elizabeth C. Wang, LOEVY & LOEVY, Boulder, Colorado, for all Appellants.\\nWilliam M. Menzalora, CITY OF CLEVELAND, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee City of\\nCleveland. Stephen W. Funk, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA, Akron, Ohio, for Appellees Karen\\nLamendola and the Estates of Eugene Terpay, James Farmer, and John Staimpel. ON BRIEF:\\nElizabeth C. Wang, LOEVY & LOEVY, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellant Ricky Jackson. Terry\\nH. Gilbert, Jacqueline C. Greene, FRIEDMAN & GILBERT, Cleveland, Ohio, David E. Mills,\\n\\n *The Honorable Damon J. Keith, United States Circuit Judge, was a member of the original panel but passed\\naway on April 28, 2019 and did not participate in the panel’s decision on rehearing.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nTHE MILLS LAW OFFICE LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants Kwame Ajamu and Wiley\\nBridgeman. William M. Menzalora, CITY OF CLEVELAND, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee City\\nof Cleveland. Stephen W. Funk, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA, Akron, Ohio, for Appellees\\nKaren Lamendola and the Estates of Eugene Terpay, James Farmer, and John Staimpel.\\n\\n BUSH, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which ROGERS, J., joined.\\n ________________________\\n\\n AMENDED OPINION\\n ________________________\\n\\n JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Appellants Ricky Jackson, Wiley Bridgeman, and Kwame\\nAjamu served a long time in prison for a crime they did not commit. For Jackson, it was thirty-\\nnine years; for Bridgeman, thirty-seven years; for Ajamu, twenty-five years. They each spent close\\nto two and a half of those years on death row.\\n\\n These men cannot get back any of the time they lost or erase the things they experienced.\\nThe best they can hope for is a remedy of damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio law. This\\nappeal concerns whether their complaints state sufficient facts for certain claims not to be\\ndismissed and whether the men have presented enough evidence for other claims to overcome\\nsummary judgment.\\n\\n In 1975, Jackson, Ajamu, and Bridgeman were convicted of murder. Their convictions\\nwere based largely on the purportedly eyewitness testimony of Edward Vernon, who then was\\nthirteen years old. In 2014, nearly forty years later, Vernon recanted, disclosing that police officers\\nhad coerced him into testifying falsely. Vernon’s recantation led to the overturning of appellants’\\nconvictions.\\n\\n The exonerated men filed suit in the Northern District of Ohio, alleging § 1983 claims\\nbased on alleged violations of their constitutional rights by the officers and the City of Cleveland\\n(“Cleveland”), along with state-law claims for indemnification against Cleveland. This appeal\\nrequires us to untangle a knot of legal issues surrounding the district court’s grant of appellees’\\nmotions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment and its denial of appellants’\\nmotions to amend their complaints. We AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment\\nas to the § 1983 claims based on conspiracy, but we REVERSE and REMAND the district court’s\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n(1) judgment on the pleadings as to the indemnification claims; (2) denial of appellants’ motions\\nto amend their complaints to substitute the administrator of the estates of the deceased officers as\\na party in their place; (3) summary judgment as to § 1983 claims arising from violations of Brady\\nv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), fabrication of evidence, and malicious prosecution; and (4)\\nsummary judgment as to claims against Cleveland based on Monell v. Department of Social\\nServices, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\nA. Factual Background\\n\\n As befits this stage of the litigation, we recite the relevant facts in the light most favorable\\nto the plaintiffs, who are appellants here. See Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d 461, 464 (6th Cir.\\n2006).\\n\\n In 1973, the Cleveland Division of Police promulgated General Police Order 19-73 (“GPO\\n19-73”), entitled “PRETRIAL DISCOVERY RIGHTS OF DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND\\nCOURTS IN CRIMINAL CASES.” R. 101-7, PageID 1630.1 GPO 19-73 provided that “defense\\ncounsel may be entitled” to several types of evidence, including “[e]vidence favorable to the\\ndefendant.” Id. But it also included a section entitled “EXCEPTION TO THE FOREGOING,”\\nwhich contained the following provision: “The foregoing does not authorize the discovery or the\\ninspection of . . . statements made by witnesses or prospective witnesses to state agents.” Id. The\\nManual of Rules used by the Division of Police (the “Manual”) did not otherwise instruct officers\\nin handling potentially exculpatory information and did not mention Brady, as the Manual’s last\\nupdate had occurred before Brady was decided.\\n\\n As described later in this opinion, some testimony suggests that Cleveland police officers\\nmay have received no formal training in their Brady obligations, and may not have known that\\nBrady imposed any obligations upon them.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1All record citations are citations to the record in No. 17-3840 (Jackson’s suit) unless otherwise indicated.\\nCitations to the record in Ajamu and Bridgeman’s suit will be prefaced by “No. 17-3843.”\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n Deposition testimony also reveals that, regardless of how officers understood their\\nobligations under Brady, violations of those obligations were common. Although it was generally\\nunderstood that anything in a detective’s file that was pertinent to a case “should go to the\\nprosecutor,” it was up to individual officers whether they followed this policy, and they did not\\nalways do so. R. 103, PageID 3794. The general practice at the time, followed in “every case,”\\nwas for detectives to provide prosecutors with only “arrest reports, witness forms and written\\nstatements taken by the Statement Unit,” and “photos,” while omitting to turn over other evidence,\\nincluding potentially exculpatory evidence, unless it was specifically requested by the prosecutor.\\nId. at PageID 3672–75. Deposition testimony describes this as a “practice,” which “happened\\nmore than it should,” of “detectives not [turning] over all the evidence to prosecutors.” R. 104,\\nPageID 3970.\\n\\n Some detectives took a more proactive role by “manipulating the evidence” before giving\\nit to prosecutors. Id. at PageID 3967. This was done, one officer testified, “because winning the\\ncase was what it was all about. It wasn’t about what was fair, it wasn’t about what was honest, it\\nwas about winning.” Id. at PageID 3967–68.\\n\\n Against this backdrop of evidence of incomplete Brady knowledge and frequent Brady\\nviolations, the record tells the following story.\\n\\n On May 19, 1975, Edward Vernon, then twelve years old, was riding the bus home from\\nschool when he heard two gunshots. Being twelve, Vernon exited the bus at the earliest\\nopportunity and ran to where he believed the shots originated. Coming upon the scene, Vernon\\nfound a gunshot victim, but nothing to indicate who was responsible for the shooting. After police\\nhad secured the area, Vernon left and met up with a friend who told Vernon that the perpetrators\\nwere Ricky Jackson, Kwame Ajamu (then known as Ronnie Bridgeman), and Wiley Bridgeman\\n(collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Vernon, a civic-minded youth, returned to the crime scene and told an\\nofficer that he knew who had committed the shooting, whereupon the officer recorded Vernon’s\\ncontact information.\\n\\n The next day, Detectives Eugene Terpay and James Farmer went to Vernon’s house and\\nrequested that he go down to the station to give a statement. As Vernon later recounted, when his\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nmother asked to accompany him to the station, the officers “told her, no, he’ll be all right, he’ll be\\nall right.” R. 99-1, PageID 1183. At the station, Vernon told Terpay and Farmer that Plaintiffs\\nhad committed the shooting and gave their descriptions, which he was able to do because he knew\\nthem from the neighborhood. The following day, Terpay and Farmer again went to Vernon’s\\nhouse and asked him for Plaintiffs’ addresses.\\n\\n Detective John Staimpel, along with his partner Frank Stoiker, was working the case with\\nTerpay and Farmer. On May 25, Staimpel and another detective, whose name Vernon cannot\\nremember, picked Vernon up at his house to bring him to a line-up. Vernon’s mother again asked\\nto accompany him, and Vernon recalls the detectives saying, “[N]o, he’ll be all right. We’ll bring\\nhim back after the lineup.” Id. at PageID 1189. The detectives brought Vernon to the line-up and,\\nas he recollects, asked him if “I see anybody that I recognize up there,” which Vernon interpreted\\nas asking whether he had seen anyone in the line-up commit the shooting. Id. at PageID 1190.\\nVernon replied that he had not. Ricky Jackson and Wiley Bridgeman, who had been arrested\\nearlier in the day, were in that line-up. From Vernon’s point of view, he had been forthright up\\nuntil this point: he had honestly told the detectives that (he thought) he knew who had committed\\nthe crime, but he had never said that he had actually witnessed the crime, and so when he was\\nasked at the line-up whether he saw anyone whom he had seen commit the crime, he said no.\\n\\n The two detectives then brought Vernon into a room, whereupon Staimpel accused Vernon\\nof lying, threatened to send his parents to jail for perjury, banged on a table, and used racial\\npejoratives to describe Vernon. (Vernon and Plaintiffs are African-Americans.) After Vernon\\nbegan to cry, Staimpel said, “[W]e’ll fix it,” and the detectives left the room. Id. at PageID 1191.\\nWhen the detectives returned, they gave Vernon a piece of paper, explained to him that it said he\\nhad failed to identify Jackson and Bridgeman in the line-up because he had been scared of their\\nretaliating, and told Vernon to sign it, which Vernon did.\\n\\n Stoiker signed a police report dated May 25, 1975, which described Stoiker and Staimpel’s\\npicking Vernon up and taking him to the line-up, Vernon’s failing to identify Jackson and\\nBridgeman, and Vernon’s explaining this failure as due to his being “very afraid” of Plaintiffs. R.\\n114-19, PageID 5113.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n The day after the line-up, Terpay and Farmer again spoke with Vernon. The detectives\\nbrought Vernon to the station, where he told them that he had not witnessed the crime and that he\\nhad never said that he had witnessed the crime. Terpay was wroth, yelling at Vernon and accusing\\nhim of having lied when he had gone to the line-up and said “that this is not them.” R. 99-1,\\nPageID 1194. Terpay threatened to send Vernon’s parents to jail for perjury, and Vernon agreed\\nto testify that he had seen Plaintiffs commit the crime.\\n\\n A police report dated May 28, 1975 indicates that Stoiker and Staimpel “[c]onsulted with\\n[the prosecutor] who issued papers charging [Plaintiffs] with [homicide].” R. 114-28, PageID\\n5321.\\n\\n Prior to Jackson’s trial, Terpay coached Vernon regarding his testimony and afterwards\\nreviewed the trial transcript with Vernon to ensure that his testimony in the trials of Bridgeman\\nand Ajamu was consistent.\\n\\n Plaintiffs were convicted at separate trials. They were sentenced to death, but their\\nsentences were later reduced to life imprisonment.\\n\\n For nearly forty years, Vernon struggled with the knowledge that his testimony had put\\nPlaintiffs in prison. He later testified, “Through out [sic] the years this case has . . . be[en] heavy\\non my emotion, my everything.” R. 99-2, PageID 1234. “I wanted to come forward throughout\\nthe years, but I was scared, scared to come forward and tell the truth . . . with this battle in my\\nmind, battle in my spirit, battle in my heart . . . . I’m battling with this . . . pretty much all my life\\n. . . .” R. 99-1, PageID 1203. The years did not lessen the turmoil in Vernon’s mind.\\n\\n One day in 2013, Vernon finally disburdened his conscience. He was lying in a hospital\\nbed, stricken with hypertension and kidney failure, when his pastor visited and told him that\\nInnocence Project attorneys were seeking to exonerate Plaintiffs. Vernon testified:\\n\\n So, after he stated that and I said, okay, well, you know what—I got up out of the\\n bed and I just broke down and I cried on his shoulder and I said, well, I’m ready to\\n tell the truth, I’m ready to come forward and tell the truth that Ricky Jackson did\\n not commit the crime that he went to prison for.\\n\\nId. at PageID 1203–04.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n Vernon formally recanted his testimony against each of the three Plaintiffs in November\\n2014. After the recantation, the prosecutor for Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is located,\\nadmitted that there was “no evidence tying any of the three convicted defendants to the crimes”\\nand that “[t]hey have been victims of a terrible injustice.” R. 116, PageID 6302–03.\\n\\nB. Procedural History\\n\\n On May 19, 2015, Jackson filed suit against Terpay, Farmer, Stoiker,2 Staimpel, and\\nCleveland (collectively, “Defendants”), as well as others,3 alleging a multitude of state and federal\\nclaims. Bridgeman and Ajamu filed suit against the same defendants on July 2, 2015. On October\\n1, 2015, Cleveland moved for judgment on the pleadings, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n12(c), as to the state-law claims in both complaints. The district court granted both motions.\\n\\n In November 2015, Jackson, and Bridgeman and Ajamu in their parallel lawsuit, all moved\\nfor leave to file amended complaints substituting the administrator of the estates of the deceased\\nDefendants (the “administrator”) for those Defendants. (J. Reid Yoder is the administrator of all\\nof the estates.) The district court denied those motions as futile, reasoning that a § 1983 claim\\nbrought in Ohio does not survive a defendant’s death.\\n\\n On January 27, 2017, Stoiker (the only living individual Defendant) moved for summary\\njudgment in both lawsuits, arguing that he was not involved in any unconstitutional activity and\\nthat, even if he was, he is protected by qualified immunity. On the same date, Cleveland also\\nmoved for summary judgment as to the Monell claims, arguing that Plaintiffs had failed to provide\\nevidence sufficient for a jury to find Cleveland liable. The district court granted both motions for\\nsummary judgment.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2Karen Lamendola is acting as guardian ad litem on behalf of Stoiker and is therefore the named defendant-\\nappellee representing Stoiker’s interests. We continue to refer to Stoiker as a Defendant for narrative convenience.\\n 3Plaintiffs also named another former officer, Jerold Englehart, in their notices of appeal. However, in their\\nappellate briefs, they expressly abandon their claims against Englehart. Jackson Br. at 33; Ajamu & Bridgeman Br.\\nat 6.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n\\n We review de novo a judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n12(c), applying the same standard we apply to review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule\\n12(b)(6). Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 623 F.3d 281, 284 (6th Cir. 2010).\\nWe therefore “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all\\nallegations as true” to determine whether the “complaint . . . contain[s] sufficient factual matter,\\naccepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Doe v. Miami Univ., 882\\nF.3d 579, 588 (6th Cir. 2018) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).\\n\\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that leave to amend “should [be] freely\\ngive[n] . . . when justice so requires.” “We review a district court’s order denying a Rule 15(a)\\nmotion to amend for an abuse of discretion.” Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d\\n417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir.\\n1990)). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact,\\nuses an erroneous legal standard, or improperly applies the law.” United States v. Arny, 831 F.3d\\n725, 730 (6th Cir. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\\n\\n “We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Adair v. Charter Cty.\\nof Wayne, 452 F.3d 482, 486 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Allen v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 405,\\n409 (6th Cir. 1999)). Summary judgment is appropriate when “no genuine dispute as to any\\nmaterial fact” exists and the moving party “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.\\nCiv. P. 56(a). “A genuine dispute of material fact exists ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable\\njury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Peffer v. Stephens, 880 F.3d 256, 262 (6th\\nCir. 2018) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). At the summary\\njudgment stage, “the evidence is construed and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the\\nnonmoving party.” Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 471 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Hawkins v.\\nAnheuser-Busch, Inc., 517 F.3d 321, 332 (6th Cir. 2008)).\\n\\n Numerous decisions by the district court are now on appeal: (1) the district court’s\\ndismissal, with prejudice, of Plaintiffs’ claims against Cleveland for indemnification under state\\nlaw; (2) the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motions to substitute the administrator of the\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\ndeceased Defendants’ estates as a defendant; (3) the district court’s grant of summary judgment to\\nStoiker on the § 1983 claims; and (4) the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Cleveland\\non the Monell claims. We address each issue in turn.\\n\\nA. Indemnification Claims\\n\\n The claims against Cleveland under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B)4 seek\\nindemnification for damages based on the alleged torts of the individual Defendants, who are\\nformer employees of Cleveland. Section 2744.07(B) provides that “a political subdivision shall\\nindemnify and hold harmless an employee” found liable for that employee’s acts, so long as the\\nemployee was “acting in good faith” and “within the scope of employment.”5 The district court\\ngranted Cleveland’s motions for judgment on the pleadings, reasoning that § 2744.07(B) provides\\nonly a tortfeasor employee, and not a tort victim, with the right to bring a claim of indemnification\\nagainst the tortfeasor’s employer.\\n\\n Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in dismissing their indemnification claims with\\nprejudice because the claims were not yet ripe and unripe claims, if they are to be dismissed, should\\nonly be dismissed without prejudice.\\n\\n Generally, a claim may not be adjudicated on its merits unless it is ripe. See Nat’l Rifle\\nAss’n of Am. v. Magaw, 132 F.3d 272, 284 (6th Cir. 1997). A claim is unripe when it “is anchored\\nin future events that may not occur as anticipated, or at all.” Id. (citing Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v.\\nState Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190, 200–01 (1983); Dames & Moore\\nv. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 689 (1981)). This prohibition comes both from the case or controversy\\nrequirement of Article III and from prudential considerations. See Brown v. Ferro Corp., 763 F.2d\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4At the time of the district court’s opinion, the relevant language appeared in\\n § 2744.07(A)(2), so the district\\ncourt cited that provision. See Jackson v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:15CV989, 2016 WL 3952117, at *2 (N.D. Ohio\\nJuly 20, 2016). Because the Ohio Revised Code has since been amended, we cite the subsection in which the relevant\\nlanguage now appears, subsection (B). The language has not been changed in any way that would affect the district\\ncourt’s, or our, analysis.\\n 5Cleveland’s brief does not address whether the defendant officers were acting “in good faith” and within\\nthe scope of their employment for purposes of the indemnification claims, and the district court did not consider those\\nissues. We will not address unargued principles of Ohio law on which the district court did not rule.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\n798, 801 (6th Cir. 1985) (noting that a ripeness analysis includes a discretionary determination\\nbeyond the Article III standing considerations).\\n\\n The ripeness doctrine exists “to prevent the courts, through premature adjudication, from\\nentangling themselves in abstract disagreements.” Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co.,\\n473 U.S. 568, 580 (1985) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967)).\\nApplication of this doctrine “requires that the court exercise its discretion to determine if judicial\\nresolution would be desirable under all of the circumstances.” Brown, 763 F.2d at 801. Of primary\\nimportance is “whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution,” and, if so, the\\ndegree of “hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied” before the claim is allowed to ripen\\nfurther. Young v. Klutznick, 652 F.2d 617, 625 (6th Cir. 1981) (quoting Toilet Goods Ass’n v.\\nGardner, 387 U.S. 158, 162 (1967)).\\n\\n Indemnification claims are frequently brought while unripe, depending as they often do on\\nthe favorable adjudication of underlying tort claims. Because of this, as a general matter, a claim\\nfor indemnification for damages that may be awarded on an underlying tort claim should not be\\nadjudicated on the merits until the underlying claim is adjudicated. See, e.g., Safety Nat’l Cas.\\nCorp. v. Am. Special Risk Ins. Co., 99 F. App’x 41, 43 (6th Cir. 2004) (finding unripe a claim of\\nindemnification for fraudulent conveyance because, among other reasons, the underlying claim for\\nfraudulent conveyance had not yet been adjudicated); see also Armstrong v. Ala. Power Co., 667\\nF.2d 1385, 1388–89 (11th Cir. 1982) (affirming dismissal of indemnity suits as premature prior to\\nentry of judgment in underlying lawsuit); A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Constr.\\nCo., 559 F.2d 928, 932 (4th Cir. 1977) (holding indemnification issue not ripe prior to adjudication\\nof underlying claims).\\n\\n Because the ripeness doctrine is discretionary, courts sometimes apply an exception for\\nindemnification claims that have no possibility of success, regardless of the merits of the\\nunderlying claims. See, e.g., Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Grand Pointe, LLC, No. 1:05-CV-161, 2006\\nWL 1806014, at *9 (E.D. Tenn. June 29, 2006) (collecting cases in support of the proposition that\\n“a court may grant summary judgment on the issue of indemnification if it can determine the\\nallegations in the complaint could under no circumstances lead to a result which would trigger the\\nduty to indemnify” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n The Sixth Circuit has not analyzed the propriety of this exception, and we need not do so\\nnow because, even if it is permissible for district courts to adjudicate indemnification claims with\\nno possibility of success prior to the adjudication of underlying tort claims, this is not such a case.\\n\\n If Plaintiffs’ indemnification claims have no possibility of success, that would be because\\nOhio law provides that only the tortfeasor employees, and not the parties injured by them, may\\nbring claims under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B). The district court did an admirable job\\nanalyzing Ohio court cases before holding that Ohio law does so provide. See Jackson v. City of\\nCleveland, No. 1:15CV989, 2016 WL 3952117, at *2 (N.D. Ohio July 20, 2016). But the only\\ncases available to the district court were from the Ohio courts of appeal, as the Ohio Supreme\\nCourt had yet to opine on the issue.\\n\\n The judgments of Ohio appellate courts not being binding on the Ohio Supreme Court,\\nthere remains a possibility that Plaintiffs’ indemnification claims could succeed: Plaintiffs would\\nneed to win their underlying tort action and, while that action was pending, the Ohio Supreme\\nCourt would need to adopt their interpretation of Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B). Although the\\nlatter eventuality may seem remote, it is far from impossible and, as it happens, the Ohio Supreme\\nCourt has accepted an appeal addressing this very issue. See Ayers v. Cleveland, 106 N.E.3d 65\\n(Ohio 2018) (Table).\\n\\n Because it is not impossible for Plaintiffs to prevail on their indemnification claims, those\\nclaims are not ripe for adjudication. As discussed above, in evaluating whether a claim is ripe,\\ncourts should determine (1) whether a matter is “appropriate for judicial resolution” and\\n(2) whether the parties would undergo hardship “if judicial relief is denied” on their claim before\\nit ripens further. Young, 652 F.2d at 625. Neither factor supports finding the indemnification\\nclaims are ripe here.\\n\\n First, interpreting Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B) is best avoided unless necessary.\\nFederal courts generally avoid interpreting unsettled state law because state “courts are in the better\\nposition to apply and interpret” their own jurisdiction’s law. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bowling\\nGreen Prof’l Assocs., PLC, 495 F.3d 266, 272 (6th Cir. 2007). As the Supreme Court said in\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nRailroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) and repeated in Louisiana\\nPower & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25 (1959):\\n\\n Had we or they (the lower court judges) no choice in the matter but to decide what\\n is the law of the state, we should hesitate long before rejecting their forecast of\\n [state] law. But no matter how seasoned the judgment of the district court may be,\\n it cannot escape being a forecast rather than a determination.\\n\\nThibodaux, 360 U.S. at 27 (quoting Pullman, 312 U.S. at 499). Where, as here, adjudicating an\\nissue of state law is unnecessary because the litigation is in its early stages, and state law is\\nunsettled, the inappropriateness of deciding the issue in federal court weighs in favor of finding\\nthe claim unripe for adjudication in federal court.\\n\\n Second, that no harm will befall Cleveland if “judicial relief is denied” for the time being\\nalso weighs in favor of finding the indemnification claims unripe. Young, 652 F.2d at 625. The\\ndistrict court’s grant of Cleveland’s motions for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’\\nindemnification claims did not release Cleveland from the litigation, as Plaintiffs still have Monell\\nclaims outstanding against Cleveland. The only effect that denying Cleveland’s motions, or\\nholding them in abeyance, would have on the litigation would be to delay adjudication of the\\nindemnification claims until a later stage in the litigation. At that point, the district court may be\\nable to avoid interpreting Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(B), because the Ohio Supreme Court may\\nalready have done so. The district court should interpret Ohio law only if the Ohio Supreme Court\\nhas not done so by the time the underlying § 1983 claims have been properly adjudicated on\\nremand, and if those claims are found to have merit.\\n\\n The ripeness doctrine therefore requires that the indemnification claims not be adjudicated\\non the merits at the pleading stage, given the unsettled condition of state law. Because “a dismissal\\nwith prejudice operates as a rejection of the plaintiff’s claims on the merits,” the district court erred\\nin dismissing those claims with prejudice. Mich. Surgery Inv., LLC v. Arman, 627 F.3d 572, 575\\n(6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. One Tract of Real Prop., 95 F.3d 422, 425–26 (6th Cir.\\n1996)).\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nB. Plaintiffs’ Motions to Substitute\\n\\n Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaints to substitute the administrator of the\\nestates of Defendants Terpay, Staimpel, and Farmer as a party in place of those Defendants, as\\nthey are now deceased. District courts “should freely give leave” to amend a complaint pre-trial\\n“when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). One permissible reason to deny leave is the\\n“futility of [the] amendment[s].” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).\\n\\n The district court denied leave to amend, reasoning that § 1983 claims brought in Ohio do\\nnot survive the death of the tortfeasor, and, therefore, the requested amendments would be futile.6\\nOn appeal, Defendants argue that the district court was correct, but also suggest an alternative\\nground for affirming—that Plaintiffs did not timely present their claims to the estates of the\\ndeceased Defendants. We address the survival and timeliness arguments in turn.\\n\\n 1. Survival of § 1983 Claims\\n\\n Defendants first argue that the denial of Plaintiffs’ motions to amend should be affirmed\\nbecause § 1983 claims do not survive the death of the tortfeasor in Ohio.\\n\\n 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) provides that in actions to protect civil rights, where “the laws of the\\nUnited States . . . are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish\\noffenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes\\nof the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held,” shall be\\napplied, “so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”\\n\\n The Supreme Court has interpreted this statutory language as requiring a three-step process\\nfor determining which jurisdiction’s procedural law, such as provisions concerning statutes of\\nlimitations or the survival of claims, is used in § 1983 suits. See Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S.\\n584, 588–89 (1978). First, a district court must determine whether there is an applicable federal\\nlaw that covers the issue, and, if there is, apply it. See id. Second, if there is no relevant federal\\nlaw, then the district court must determine what the appropriate rule is in the state where the district\\n\\n\\n 6The district court also denied leave to amend on futility grounds with regard to Plaintiffs’ state-law claims\\nagainst the deceased Defendants, but Plaintiffs do not appeal that ruling.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\ncourt sits. See id. at 588. Third, the district court must determine whether the law of that state is\\n“inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States;” if there is no inconsistency, the\\nstate law is used, but if inconsistency exists, a federal common-law rule is used. Id. at 588–89.\\n\\n Because “[n]o federal statute or rule says anything about the survivorship of § 1983\\nclaims,” Crabbs v. Scott, 880 F.3d 292, 294 (6th Cir. 2018), we turn to the relevant Ohio law,\\nwhich provides:\\n\\n In addition to the causes of action which survive at common law, causes of\\n action for mesne profits, or injuries to the person or property, or for deceit or fraud,\\n also shall survive; and such actions may be brought notwithstanding the death of\\n the person entitled or liable thereto.\\n\\nOhio Rev. Code § 2305.21. Plaintiffs argued before the district court that their claims fall within\\n“injuries to the person,” while Defendants argued that “injuries to the person” encompasses only\\nphysical injuries, and not the violation of rights alleged in this case. The district court agreed with\\nDefendants, citing a district court case holding that under Ohio law, § 1983 claims similar to those\\nbrought by Plaintiffs did not involve “injuries to the person.” Tinney v. Richland Cty., No. 1:14\\nCV 703, 2014 WL 6896256, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 8, 2014), aff’d, 678 F. App’x 362 (6th Cir.\\n2017).\\n\\n On appeal, Defendants again argue that Plaintiffs’ claims for malicious prosecution,\\nfabrication of evidence, and Brady violations cannot be characterized as “injuries to the person”\\nthat survive the death of the tortfeasor. Therefore, they argue that Tinney controls the result here.\\nDefendants also argue that State ex rel. Crow v. Weygandt, 162 N.E.2d 845, 848 (Ohio 1959), an\\nOhio Supreme Court case holding that state-law claims for malicious prosecution do not survive\\nthe death of a party, means that Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for malicious prosecution also do not\\nsurvive. The Weygandt court based its holding on Ohio Revised Code § 2311.21, which provided:\\n\\n Unless otherwise provided, no action or proceeding pending in any court\\n shall abate by the death of either or both of the parties thereto, except actions for\\n libel, slander, malicious prosecution, for a nuisance, or against a judge of a County\\n Court for misconduct in office, which shall abate by the death of either party.\\n\\nThis provision is still in effect, its language unamended since the Weygandt decision except for\\none capitalization change. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2311.21. Finally, Defendants point to Stein-\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\nSapir v. Birdsell, 673 F.2d 165, 167 (6th Cir. 1982), a Sixth Circuit case recognizing the Weygandt\\nrule.\\n\\n Neither Defendants’ reliance on Tinney nor their argument based on Weygandt is\\npersuasive. To begin with, the Sixth Circuit’s unpublished opinion affirming the district court in\\nTinney is no longer good law. After the district court’s judgment in this case, Tinney was\\nsuperseded by Crabbs, a published opinion of this circuit that expressly rejected Tinney’s holding\\nand held instead that all § 1983 claims are subject to the forum state’s survival rules for personal\\ninjury actions, regardless of the specific type of injury underlying the § 1983 claim. See Crabbs,\\n880 F.3d at 296.\\n\\n It is immaterial that Crabbs addressed an unreasonable search claim under the Fourth and\\nFourteenth Amendments, see id. at 293, whereas Plaintiffs’ claims here are for malicious\\nprosecution, fabrication of evidence, and Brady violations. Crabbs expressly disagreed with\\nTinney, which did involve a malicious prosecution claim. The Tinney plaintiff had sued in Ohio;\\ntherefore, his § 1983 claims were subject to Ohio survival rules just as Plaintiffs’ claims are here.\\nNoting that the Tinney court did not apply Ohio’s survival rule for personal injury actions to a\\n§ 1983 malicious prosecution claim, the Crabbs court announced that it was “part[ing] way with”\\nTinney. Crabbs, 880 F.3d at 296. With that language, Crabbs rejected Tinney’s reasoning\\npertaining to malicious prosecution claims.\\n\\n If the explicit rejection of Tinney were not enough to defeat Defendants’ argument, the\\nCrabbs court’s more general discussion of its rationale would be. Although Crabbs involved an\\nunreasonable search claim, the reasoning applied to all § 1983 claims. See 880 F.3d at 296. In\\nexplaining that all § 1983 claims must be classified together for purposes of determining what state\\nprocedural rules apply, the Crabbs court cited Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985), in which\\nthe Supreme Court addressed what state statute of limitations should apply in § 1983 actions. See\\nCrabbs, 880 F.3d at 294–95. (After Wilson was decided, Congress enacted a federal statute of\\nlimitations, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1658.) Crabbs cited Wilson for three general propositions.\\n“First, the characterization of § 1983 as a cause of action is itself a question of federal law . . . .\\nSecond, all § 1983 claims must be characterized in the same way . . . . Third, § 1983 actions are\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\nbest characterized as personal injury actions.” Crabbs, 880 F.3d at 294–95 (second emphasis\\nadded) (citing Wilson, 471 U.S. at 269–70, 271–75, 280).\\n\\n More specifically, the Crabbs court reasoned that all § 1983 claims must be treated the\\nsame way for survival-of-claims purposes, just as they are for statute-of-limitations purposes. Id.\\nat 295. The court’s language could not be clearer: “the appropriate level at which to generalize a\\n§ 1983 claim under state law is as a personal injury action, sounding in tort, and nothing further.”\\nId. at 296 (emphasis added). Therefore, although Weygandt and Ohio Revised Code § 2311.21\\nare still good law, after Crabbs, they do not establish a separate survival rule for malicious\\nprosecution claims brought under § 1983.\\n\\n Our court’s 1982 decision in Stein-Sapir is not to the contrary. Although Defendants argue\\nthat that opinion adopted the Weygandt rule, all Stein-Sapir did was apply Weygandt—and an Ohio\\nCourt of Appeals decision extending Weygandt’s survival rule to libel and slander claims—to hold\\nthat the plaintiff’s state-law defamation claims did not survive the defendant’s death. See Stein-\\nSapir, 673 F.2d at 167. Stein-Sapir involved only state law and did not mention § 1983.\\n\\n When hearing a direct appeal, this court evaluates the merits of the case based on the\\ncurrent law and its interpretation, not the law and its interpretation existing when the district court\\nentered its judgment. See Chaz Concrete Co., LLC v. Codell, 545 F.3d 407, 409 (6th Cir. 2008).\\nAfter Crabbs, all claims brought under § 1983 are to be treated as actions sounding in personal\\ninjury tort. Because Ohio Revised Code § 2305.21 provides that actions for personal injury survive\\nthe death of the tortfeasor, and that statute does not conflict with the laws of the United States, see\\nCrabbs, 880 F.3d at 295, all § 1983 actions brought in Ohio survive the death of the tortfeasor.\\n\\n Therefore, through no fault of its own because its ruling predated Crabbs, the district court\\nwas in error as to its grounds for finding that the proposed amendments, substituting the\\nadministrator of the estates of Terpay, Staimpel, and Farmer for those Defendants, would be futile.\\n\\n 2. Timeliness of Plaintiffs’ Claims Against the Estates\\n\\n Defendants argue that we should affirm the district court on alternative grounds—namely,\\nthat the claims against the estates were not timely brought. Proper adjudication of this issue\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\nrequires analysis of both Ohio and federal law. Defendants argue that Ohio estate law regarding\\nthe timely filing of claims defines which entities have the capacity to be sued, while Plaintiffs\\nargue that those provisions are merely statutes of limitations. See Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2117.06,\\n2117.37.\\n\\n The points of contention do not end there, however. If Plaintiffs are correct that Ohio estate\\nlaw merely establishes statutes of limitations, the parties also dispute whether those statutes or the\\ngeneral Ohio statute of limitations applies to § 1983 suits. On the other hand, if Defendants are\\ncorrect that Ohio estate law defines which entities have the capacity to be sued, the parties also\\ndisagree over whether federal courts hearing § 1983 actions are bound by that definition, as well\\nas whether an exception to that definition, provided in Ohio Revised Code § 2117.06(G), applies\\nto the facts of this case.\\n\\n The district court did not address these issues, instead relying on its holding that the § 1983\\nclaims did not survive the deaths of the deceased Defendants.7 “It is the general rule that a federal\\nappellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.” Lindsay v. Yates, 498 F.3d\\n434, 441 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Henry, 429 F.3d 603, 618 (6th Cir. 2005)). This\\ndirective is not jurisdictional, however, and “a departure from this general rule may be warranted\\nwhen ‘the issue is presented with sufficient clarity and completeness and its resolution will\\nmaterially advance the progress of this already protracted litigation.’” Katt v. Dykhouse, 983 F.2d\\n690, 695 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., 838 F.2d 1445,\\n1461 (6th Cir. 1988)).\\n\\n We will follow the general rule and decline to address these issues in the first instance.\\nThese are thorny issues of first impression in this circuit, and because the district court has not yet\\naddressed them, we do not believe they are “presented with sufficient clarity and completeness”\\nfor our review. Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7The district court did address timeliness with regard to Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, but Plaintiffs do not\\nchallenge that analysis on appeal. The timeliness analysis required for the § 1983 claims differs from that required\\nfor the state-law claims: the former involves a three-step analysis to determine the applicable law, as described in\\nsection II(B)(1), supra. See Robertson, 436 U.S. at 588–89. The district court did not conduct this analysis.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\n 3. Conclusion\\n\\n The district court erred in finding that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments would be futile on\\nthe ground that § 1983 claims brought in Ohio do not survive the deaths of the tortfeasors, and we\\ndecline to address whether Defendants have presented an alternative ground on which the district\\ncourt’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motions to amend could be affirmed. Because applying the wrong\\nlegal standard constitutes reversible error on abuse of discretion review, United States v. Arny, 831\\nF.3d 725, 730 (6th Cir. 2016), the district court’s denial of the motions to file amended complaints\\nis REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.\\n\\nC. Stoiker’s Motion for Summary Judgment\\n\\n We next address the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Stoiker on the § 1983\\nclaims that Stoiker violated Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by withholding\\nexculpatory evidence, fabricating evidence, and conspiring to do the same, and Plaintiffs’ Fourth\\nAmendment right to be free of malicious prosecution.\\n\\n If a police officer violates the Constitution, “42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a civil remedy for\\nthose” injured by the violation. Peffer v. Stephens, 880 F.3d 256, 263 (6th Cir. 2018). But officers\\nsued under the aegis of § 1983 are protected from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity\\n“insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of\\nwhich a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)\\n(quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). Qualified immunity does not apply if\\n(1) “on the plaintiff’s facts,” a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) the alleged violation was\\nof “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”\\nHoover v. Radabaugh, 307 F.3d 460, 465 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Dickerson v. McClellan, 101\\nF.3d 1151, 1158 (6th Cir. 1996)).\\n\\n The district court found that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find\\nthat Stoiker had committed any of the alleged constitutional violations. We address each of the\\nappealed determinations in turn.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\n 1. Constitutional Violations\\n\\n a. Withholding Exculpatory Evidence\\n\\n The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state may “deprive\\nany person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within\\nits jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. In Brady v.\\nMaryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), the Supreme Court held “that the suppression by the\\nprosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the\\nevidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of\\nthe prosecution.” Prosecutors are not the only state actors bound by Brady, and “police can commit\\na constitutional deprivation analogous to that recognized in Brady by withholding or suppressing\\nexculpatory material.” Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351, 379 (6th Cir. 2009).\\n\\n Brady claims have three elements: “[1] the evidence at issue must be favorable to the\\naccused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; [2] that evidence must have\\nbeen suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and [3] prejudice must have\\nensued.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281–82 (1999).\\n\\n The district court granted summary judgment to Stoiker on the ground that Plaintiffs had\\nfailed to present evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the second element—that Stoiker\\nhad suppressed evidence. It did so for two reasons. First, it held that there was insufficient\\nevidence for a jury to find that Stoiker was involved with the unconstitutional activity at all, noting\\nthat Vernon had never identified Stoiker as one of the officers involved.8 Second, even if Stoiker\\nwere involved, the district court held, there was insufficient evidence that he was aware of any\\nexculpatory evidence, and an officer unaware of exculpatory evidence cannot suppress that\\nevidence.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8“The only evidence that points to Stoiker’s involvement are the signatures on the statement and the report.\\nHowever, even if those are Stoiker’s signatures, Plaintiff has not cited to any policy, practice, or procedure about the\\nmeaning or effect of signature [sic]. Therefore, the Court is left to speculate as to what the signature meant.” Jackson\\nv. City of Cleveland, CASE NO. 1:15CV989, 2017 WL 3380456, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017).\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\n We disagree with the district court’s reasoning. Given the evidence in the record, although\\na jury might ultimately find that Stoiker did not suppress evidence, it would not be unreasonable\\nin finding that he had.\\n\\n Consider the following evidence. Vernon testified that Staimpel and another officer led\\nhim into a room after he failed to identify Plaintiffs at a line-up and coerced him into signing a\\nfalse statement about that line-up. Staimpel testified at trial that (1) Stoiker was his partner and\\n(2) Stoiker was present for the line-up. Based on Staimpel’s testimony, a reasonable jury could\\ninfer that (3) Stoiker was present during the post-line-up interview of Vernon and (4) Stoiker was\\npresent when Vernon signed his false statement explaining his “fear” of Plaintiffs.\\n\\n In addition, the record contains a police report, signed by Stoiker and dated the day that\\nVernon testified he was coerced into signing a false statement by two detectives, detailing the\\nversion of the line-up and subsequent interview that Vernon alleges were fabricated. The district\\ncourt is correct that the report does not say that Stoiker was involved in that line-up and interview,\\nbut a jury is “allowed to make reasonable inferences from facts proven in evidence having a\\nreasonable tendency to sustain them,” Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372, 396 (1943), and it\\nis reasonable to infer that a detective who signs a report was involved in the events recounted in\\nthat report.\\n\\n Because of this proof, a reasonable jury could find that Stoiker was present when Vernon\\nwas coerced into signing the allegedly false statement, in which he claimed that he had failed to\\nidentify Jackson and Bridgeman in the line-up because he was afraid of them. And if Stoiker was\\npresent when Vernon was coerced into signing the allegedly false statement, he knew that Vernon\\nhad not given fear of Plaintiffs as his true reason for not identifying them—in other words, that the\\nstatement was false. That knowledge was exculpatory evidence. See Giglio v. United States, 405\\nU.S. 150, 154 (1972) (“When the reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt\\nor innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within [Brady’s disclosure]\\nrule.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). If Stoiker was present, he also knew that\\ndetectives coerced Vernon’s statement, which was a related, but separate, piece of exculpatory\\nevidence. See id.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\n In addition, a reasonable jury could find that Stoiker was aware of a third piece of\\nexculpatory evidence. While his possible awareness of this evidence is less clear-cut than of the\\nabove-mentioned pieces of exculpatory evidence, it would not be unreasonable for a jury to infer\\nthat Stoiker knew Vernon had said he had not seen Plaintiffs commit the crime with which they\\nwere charged. Whether or not Stoiker was told by other officers that Vernon had not seen Plaintiffs\\ncommit the murder, Vernon stated that he was asked at the line-up “if I could recognize anyone\\nthere who was at the shooting” and that he answered that question in the negative.9 R. 99-3,\\nPageID 1236.\\n\\n Stoiker and the district court interpret that question as asking whether Vernon recognized\\nanyone in the line-up. Vernon interpreted it as asking whether he had seen anyone in the line-up\\ncommit the crime.10 If Vernon’s interpretation is correct, then the officers present—which a\\nreasonable jury could find included Stoiker—knew that Vernon was claiming he had not seen\\nPlaintiffs commit the crime when he answered “No” to their question. A reasonable jury could\\nfind that Vernon, the only witness to the events who has testified to the contents of that\\nconversation, interpreted the question correctly.\\n\\n As Stoiker did not disclose any of this evidence to prosecutors, a reasonable jury could find\\nthat Stoiker suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady.\\n\\n As to the third element of a Brady claim, a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiffs suffered\\nprejudice as a result of the alleged suppression. To show prejudice, Plaintiffs must show that the\\nallegedly suppressed evidence was “material;” in other words, “that there is a reasonable\\nprobability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict.” Strickler, 527\\nU.S. at 280, 281. Because Vernon’s coerced statement formed the core of the prosecution’s case,\\nthere is a reasonable likelihood that, had the juries in Plaintiffs’ trials known that that statement\\nwas fabricated and coerced, or that Vernon had orally stated that he had not seen the shooting, the\\n\\n\\n\\n 9As mentioned in section I(A), supra, Vernon alternatively recalled that he may have been asked if “I see\\nanybody that I recognize up there.” R. 99-1, PageID 1190.\\n 10Vernon later explained that he answered in the negative because “I didn’t seen happen [sic] on May 19,\\n1975.” R. 99-2, PageID 1233.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\njuries would not have convicted Plaintiffs. Therefore, a reasonable jury could find all three\\nelements of a Brady claim satisfied.\\n\\n b. Fabricating Evidence\\n\\n The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is also “violated when evidence is\\nknowingly fabricated and a reasonable likelihood exists that the false evidence would have affected\\nthe decision of the jury.” Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 737 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing\\nStemler v. City of Florence, 126 F.3d 856, 872 (6th Cir. 1997)).\\n\\n Stoiker presents two arguments for why summary judgment was appropriate on this issue.\\nFirst, he contends there was insufficient evidence that he was involved in the fabrication of\\nVernon’s statement. Second, Stoiker argues there was insufficient evidence that the fabricated\\nstatement affected the decision of the jury. The district court agreed with both of Stoiker’s\\narguments.\\n\\n Turning to the first argument, a reasonable jury could find, as discussed in section\\nII(C)(1)(a), supra, that Stoiker was in the room when Vernon was initially intimidated, left the\\nroom with Staimpel, and then returned to the room with Staimpel, at which point Staimpel coerced\\nVernon into signing the statement. This does not necessarily entail that Stoiker participated in the\\ncreation of the false statement, but a reasonable jury could infer that Stoiker either drafted, or\\nassisted Staimpel in drafting, the false statement. If Stoiker was actively involved in the fabrication\\nof the false statement, he knowingly fabricated evidence.\\n\\n As for the second argument, there is, in fact, sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to\\nconclude that the false statement influenced the juries at Plaintiffs’ trials. True, as the district court\\nnoted, although the statement was introduced in evidence by the defense at Jackson’s trial, it was\\nused only by defense counsel in an attempt to impeach Vernon’s testimony and “it is unclear\\nwhether the jury in the Jackson trial had the statement while they were deliberating.” 11 Jackson\\nv. City of Cleveland, CASE NO. 1:15CV989, 2017 WL 3380456, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017).\\n\\n\\n 11Although the possibility is ultimately unnecessary to our holding on the fabrication-of-evidence claims,\\nwe note that because Vernon’s statement was introduced in evidence at Jackson’s trial, a reasonable jury could infer\\nthat the jury that convicted Jackson had access to the statement at some point in their deliberations.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\nAlso, the statement was not admitted in evidence at Bridgeman’s or Ajamu’s trial at all. And it is\\nfair to conclude, as the district court reasoned, that “Vernon’s live testimony,” not the statement,\\n“led to the conviction[s] in all three trials.” Id.\\n\\n But the relevant question is not whether the fabricated evidence was shown to the jury; it\\nis whether the statement affected the decision of the jury. For example, a fabricated search warrant\\naffidavit, used to obtain evidence later shown to the jury, can form the basis for a fabrication-of-\\nevidence suit. See Webb v. United States, 789 F.3d 647, 670 (6th Cir. 2015). And fabricated\\nevidence that “is used as [the] basis for a criminal charge” can form the basis for a § 1983 claim\\nbecause, absent that evidence, there would have been no jury. Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273,\\n294 n.19 (3d Cir. 2014).\\n\\n A reasonable jury in the present case could find that the fabricated statement impacted the\\njuries’ decisions in the criminal trials in at least two ways. First, the prosecutor testified that his\\nunderstanding of Vernon’s statement was based on the copy in the police report and that, if he had\\nknown what had actually happened on the day of the line-up, he would have declined to prosecute:\\nhe does not, as he put it, “believe in prosecuting innocent people.” R. 114-29, PageID 5350. The\\nprosecutor did not speak to Vernon prior to bringing charges, and so the false statement constituted\\nthe entire basis for his understanding of Vernon’s involvement. If Staimpel and Stoiker had not\\nfabricated Vernon’s statement, therefore, charges would not have been brought, and, of course, a\\njury that is never empaneled is a jury that does not return a guilty verdict.\\n\\n A jury in the present case also could find that the falsified statement caused the criminal\\nverdicts because the statement coerced Vernon to testify in conformance with it. Unlike Staimpel’s\\nbaseless threat to prosecute Vernon’s parents if Vernon failed to sign a statement saying that he\\nhad seen Plaintiffs commit the crime, Vernon would have faced a real threat of prosecution for\\nperjury had his testimony conflicted with his earlier signed statement. See Osburn v. State, 7 Ohio\\n212, 214–15 (1835) (admitting as evidence of perjury a paper signed by the defendant).\\n\\n A reasonable jury could therefore find both that Stoiker participated in the fabrication of\\nVernon’s statement and that there is a reasonable probability the statement affected the juries at\\nPlaintiffs’ trials.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\n c. Conspiracy to Withhold and Fabricate Evidence\\n\\n To make out a claim for conspiracy to deprive them of their due process rights, Plaintiffs\\nmust show “that (1) a single plan existed, (2) the conspirators shared a conspiratorial objective to\\ndeprive the plaintiffs of their constitutional rights, and (3) an overt act was committed in\\nfurtherance of the conspiracy that caused the injury.” Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 622 (6th\\nCir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Revis v. Meldrum, 489 F.3d 273, 290 (6th\\nCir. 2007)).\\n\\n For the reasons discussed above, a reasonable jury could find that Stoiker and Staimpel\\nplanned to draft a false statement and coerce Vernon into signing that statement and that they\\ncommitted an overt act in furtherance of that plan. Further supporting the conspiracy claim, it\\nwould not be unreasonable for a jury to infer that the detectives planned to withhold the existence\\nof their acts from prosecutors for the purpose of tipping the scales against Plaintiffs, as informing\\nprosecutors of the coercion would have rendered their actions meaningless.\\n\\n However, the inquiry does not end there. We must also determine whether an individual\\ncan be held liable for conspiracy when the alleged conspiracy was undertaken by agreement with\\nanother individual or individuals employed by the same entity as the defendant.\\n\\n The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, which states that if “all of the defendants are\\nmembers of the same collective entity, there are not two separate ‘people’ to form a conspiracy,”\\nhas been applied to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) by this court. Johnson v. Hills & Dales Gen. Hosp.,\\n40 F.3d 837, 839–40 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hull v. Cuyahoga Valley Joint Vocational Sch. Dist.\\nBd. of Educ., 926 F.2d 505, 510 (6th Cir. 1991)). Section 1985(3) creates a cause of action for a\\nconspiracy between two or more persons to deprive another of the equal protection of the laws.\\n\\n We have also held that the doctrine applies in § 1985(2) suits. Doherty v. Am. Motors\\nCorp., 728 F.2d 334, 339 (6th Cir. 1984). 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) creates a cause of action for a\\nconspiracy to, among other actions, obstruct justice or to intimidate a party, witness, or juror.\\n\\n But this circuit has never decided whether the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine also\\napplies to suits under § 1983. See DiLuzio v. Vill. of Yorkville, 796 F.3d 604, 615 (6th Cir. 2015)\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 25\\n\\n\\n(noting that “the Sixth Circuit has never held that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to\\nmunicipal government officials in a § 1983 action and the district courts within our circuit are split\\non this question”). To determine whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether\\nStoiker conspired to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, therefore, we must resolve this issue\\nof first impression.\\n\\n We are aware of only one circuit, the Eleventh, that has squarely addressed the issue and\\nhas determined that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies in § 1983 actions as in § 1985\\nactions. See Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240, 1261 (11th Cir. 2010); Rehberg v. Paulk,\\n611 F.3d 828, 854 (11th Cir. 2010). By contrast, we are aware of no circuit that has applied the\\ndoctrine in § 1985 actions but declined to apply it in § 1983 actions.12\\n\\n We join the Eleventh Circuit and hold that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies\\nin § 1983 suits to bar conspiracy claims where two or more employees of the same entity are\\nalleged to have been acting within the scope of their employment when they allegedly conspired\\ntogether to deprive the plaintiff of his rights. See Grider, 618 F.3d at 1261–62; cf. Johnson, 40 F.3d\\nat 841 (“[W]hen employees act outside the course of their employment, they and the corporation\\nmay form a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).”). We so hold because the considerations that\\nsupport applying the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in § 1985 suits pertain equally to the\\n§ 1983 context, and we discern no logical distinction upon which to treat § 1983 conspiracy claims\\ndifferently. Cf. Hull, 926 F.2d at 509–10 (holding that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine\\napplies to § 1985(3) claims and stating “that this court’s opinion in Doherty [which applied the\\ndoctrine to § 1985(2)—not § 1985(3)—claims] is dispositive of this issue”). Recognizing that\\ndistrict courts within this circuit have split on the question,13 we will explain why the reasons for\\napplying the doctrine to § 1983 outweigh the reasons for not doing so.\\n\\n\\n 12Some courts have held that the doctrine does not apply in the civil rights context at all. See, e.g., Brever v.\\nRockwell Int’l Corp., 40 F.3d 1119, 1126–27 (10th Cir. 1994).\\n 13Compare Vaduva v. City of Xenia, No. 3:17-cv-41, 2017 WL 4773076, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2017)\\n(applying the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in § 1983 suit); Gillespie v. City of Battle Creek, 100 F. Supp. 3d 623,\\n631–32 (W.D. Mich. 2015) (same); Wright v. Bloomfield Twp., No. 12-15379, 2014 WL 5499278, at *15–16 (E.D.\\nMich. Oct. 30, 2014) (same); Pardi v. Cty. of Wayne, No. 12–12063, 2013 WL 1011280, at *14–15 (E.D. Mich. Mar.\\n14, 2013) (same); Audio Visual Equip. & Supplies, Inc. v. Cty. of Wayne, No. 06-10904, 2007 WL 4180974, at *5–6\\n(E.D. Mich. Nov. 27, 2007) (same); Adcock v. City of Memphis, No. 06-2109, 2007 WL 784344, at *4–5 (W.D. Tenn.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 26\\n\\n\\n The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine was recognized in antitrust and civil rights cases\\nbased on the legal notion of corporations as “persons.” See Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube\\nCorp., 467 U.S. 752, 769 n.15 (1984); Doherty, 728 F.2d at 339. When employees of a corporation\\nact to further the purposes of that “person,” principles from the law of agency dictate that those\\nemployees be treated not as separate “persons” but as part of the same “person.” See Hull, 926\\nF.2d at 509–10; Doherty, 728 F.2d at 339. We have recognized the relevance of these principles\\nto suits against employees of local government entities as well as against employees of private\\ncorporations. See Hull, 926 F.2d at 509–10. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that\\nmunicipalities are “persons” for purposes of § 1983. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,\\n690 (1978).\\n\\n Because the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine follows from the legal definition of\\n“person,” which includes local governments, the doctrine has been developed to deal with the\\nquestion whether there are two separate persons to form a conspiracy. See Hull, 926 F.2d at 510.\\nThe doctrine’s application to other civil rights statutes has not been premised upon any factor\\nunique to those statutes. We therefore see no reason to decline to apply the doctrine to § 1983.\\nSection 1983 creates a cause of action against any “person” who deprives a plaintiff of his rights,\\njust like § 1985. Therefore, if § 1985 cannot be violated by an alleged conspiracy where the\\nalleged conspirators are all employees of the same entity acting within the scope of their\\nemployment, neither can § 1983.\\n\\n Furthermore, we decline to adopt the rationale that because “[§] 1985 is in its essence a\\nconspiracy statute[,] [while] [§] 1983 is not,” the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to the\\nformer but not the latter. Kinkus v. Vill. of Yorkville, 476 F. Supp. 2d 829, 840 (S.D. Ohio 2007).\\nAlthough § 1983 does not expressly contemplate a cause of action for conspiracy, once we have\\nrecognized such a cause of action—which we have, see, e.g., DiLuzio, 796 F.3d at 615–16—the\\nquestion whether a conspiracy can exist where all alleged conspirators work for the same entity,\\n\\n\\nMar. 13, 2007) (same); Turner v. Viviano, No. 04-CV-70509-DT, 2005 WL 1678895, at *13 (E.D. Mich. July 15,\\n2005) (same), with Tinney v. Richland Cty., No. 1:14 CV 703, 2015 WL 542415, at *12 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 10, 2015)\\n(declining to apply the doctrine in a § 1983 suit), aff’d on other grounds, 678 F. App’x 362 (6th Cir. 2017); Kinkus v.\\nVill. of Yorkville, 476 F. Supp. 2d 829, 839–40 (S.D. Ohio 2007) (same), rev’d on other grounds, 289 F. App’x 86\\n(6th Cir. 2008).\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 27\\n\\n\\nand are alleged to have been acting in the scope of their employment, naturally arises. That inquiry\\nis identical under § 1983 and § 1985. After all, we did not apply the intracorporate conspiracy\\ndoctrine in § 1985 actions on a theory that the text of that particular statutory provision demanded\\nit. Instead, we simply adopted a conspiracy jurisprudence that developed outside the civil rights\\ncontext. See Hull, 926 F.2d at 509.\\n\\n Nor do we see any reason to limit application of the doctrine to cases in which a\\nmunicipality is alleged to have conspired with one or more of its employees, in contrast to cases\\nin which two or more employees are alleged only to have conspired with each other. We have\\nmade clear that “members of the same legal entity cannot conspire with one another as long as\\ntheir alleged acts were within the scope of their employment.” Jackson v. City of Columbus, 194\\nF.3d 737, 753 (6th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added) (citing Johnson, 40 F.3d at 840), abrogated on\\nother grounds by Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002); accord Hull, 926 F.2d at\\n510. In Hull, we applied the doctrine to bar the plaintiff’s § 1985(3) claim alleging conspiracy\\nagainst “a school district superintendent, the executive director of the district, and a school\\nadministrator, all of whom [were] employees or agents of the Board [of Education].” 926 F.2d at\\n510. The plaintiff did not allege that the school board itself was a conspirator, but we noted that\\n“[s]ince all of the defendants [were] members of the same collective entity, there [were] not two\\nseparate ‘people’ to form a conspiracy.” Id.\\n\\n Finally, we have recognized an exception to the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in\\n§ 1985(3) suits where the defendants were alleged to have been acting outside the scope of their\\nemployment, see Johnson, 40 F.3d at 841, and we have indicated that the exception would apply\\nequally in the § 1983 context were we to apply the doctrine in § 1983 suits, see DiLuzio, 796 F.3d\\nat 616. Accordingly, the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to § 1983, and we assume that\\nadopting the doctrine entails adopting the exception. Cf. DiLuzio, 796 F.3d at 616. But the scope-\\nof-employment exception is unsupported by the record here because Plaintiffs have alleged that\\nStoiker and the other individual Defendants were acting “within the scope of their employment.”\\nR. 86, PageID 1018; No. 17-3843, R. 53, PageID 707.\\n\\n Therefore, as a matter of law, Stoiker cannot be liable for conspiracy in violation of § 1983\\nwhere he is alleged to have conspired with other employees of the same government entity, in the\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 28\\n\\n\\nscope of their employment, to violate Plaintiffs’ rights. The district court’s grant of summary\\njudgment to Stoiker on the conspiracy claims is AFFIRMED.\\n\\n d. Malicious Prosecution\\n\\n The Fourth Amendment begins: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,\\nhouses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”\\nU.S. Const. amend. IV. Amongst other protections, this guarantee affords people the right to be\\nfree of unjust prosecution. See Mills v. Barnard, 869 F.3d 473, 479–80 (6th Cir. 2017).14\\n\\n A malicious-prosecution claim has four elements: “(1) that a criminal prosecution was\\ninitiated against the plaintiff and that the defendant ma[d]e, influence[d], or participate[d] in the\\ndecision to prosecute; (2) that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution;\\n(3) that, as a consequence of a legal proceeding, the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of\\nliberty . . . apart from the initial seizure; and (4) that the criminal proceeding must have been\\nresolved in the plaintiff’s favor.”15 Id. at 480 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks\\nomitted) (quoting Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 308–09 (6th Cir. 2010)).\\n\\n There being no dispute that Plaintiffs suffered a deprivation of liberty or that the criminal\\nproceedings were resolved in their favor, we need only address the first two elements.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14Although we now analyze constitutional claims for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment,\\n“[p]rior to January 1994 . . . this circuit analyzed [such claims] as accruing under the Fourteenth rather than the Fourth\\nAmendment.” Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1006 (6th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). We ceased doing so\\nafter the Supreme Court held in Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271, 273–75 (1994) that malicious-prosecution\\nclaims must be asserted under the Fourth Amendment rather than the Fourteenth. In so holding, the Albright Court\\nrecognized “the Fourth Amendment’s relevance to the deprivations of liberty that go hand in hand with criminal\\nprosecutions.” Id. at 274 (citing Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 114 (1975)).\\n 15There are two types of § 1983 claims, both sounding in the Fourth Amendment, that are sometimes referred\\nto as “malicious prosecution” claims. One is for the wrongful institution of legal process (which is the type most\\nproperly called a “malicious prosecution” claim) and the other is for continued detention without probable cause. See\\nCleary v. Cty. of Macomb, 409 F. App’x 890, 898 (6th Cir. 2011); see also Gregory, 444 F.3d at 747–49 (stating that\\nclaims for continued detention without probable cause are not properly considered “malicious prosecution” claims,\\nbut recognizing that courts’ use of terminology varies). Although Plaintiffs are not always clear as to their intended\\ntheory of liability, they and Stoiker state the test for, and perform their analysis under, the wrongful institution of legal\\nprocess theory, and we will do the same.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 29\\n\\n\\n i. Stoiker Influenced or Participated in the Decision to Prosecute\\n\\n The first element of the malicious-prosecution claim is met when an officer “could\\nreasonably foresee that his misconduct would contribute to an independent decision that results in\\na deprivation of liberty” and the misconduct actually does so. Sykes, 625 F.3d at 316 (quoting\\nHigazy v. Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 177 (2d Cir. 2007)). This element is met when an officer\\nincludes “misstatements and falsehoods in his investigatory materials” and those materials\\ninfluence a prosecutor’s decision to bring charges. Id.\\n\\n A reasonable jury could find that Stoiker’s misconduct influenced the decision to bring\\ncharges against Plaintiffs for two reasons. First, Stoiker and Staimpel “[c]onsulted with [the\\nprosecutor] who issued papers charging [Plaintiffs] with [homicide].” R. 114-28, PageID 5321.\\nAlthough the record does not indicate the contents of that consultation, it is reasonable to infer that\\nit involved false statements about Vernon’s identification of Plaintiffs and that this consultation\\ninfluenced the prosecutor’s decision to bring charges against Plaintiffs.\\n\\n Second, the prosecutor’s only knowledge of Vernon’s involvement when deciding to bring\\ncharges was based on Vernon’s statement, a statement that a jury could reasonably find to have\\nbeen fabricated by Stoiker. And the prosecutor later testified that had he known about what\\nactually happened on the day of the line-up—because Stoiker and Staimpel had told him during\\nconversation, or because they had drafted an accurate statement for Vernon, or because Stoiker\\nhad drafted an accurate report concerning that day’s events—the prosecutor would not have\\nproceeded to trial.\\n\\n ii. There Was a Lack of Probable Cause for the Criminal Prosecution\\n\\n When a grand jury returns an indictment against a defendant, this creates a “presumption\\nof probable cause,” which is rebuttable by showing that:\\n\\n (1) [A] law-enforcement officer, in the course of setting a prosecution in motion,\\n either knowingly or recklessly ma[de] false statements (such as in affidavits or\\n investigative reports) or falsifie[d] or fabricate[d] evidence; (2) the false statements\\n and evidence, together with any concomitant misleading omissions, [we]re material\\n to the ultimate prosecution of the plaintiff; and (3) the false statements, evidence,\\n and omissions d[id] not consist solely of grand-jury testimony or preparation for\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 30\\n\\n\\n that testimony (where preparation has a meaning broad enough to encompass\\n conspiring to commit perjury before the grand jury).\\n\\nKing v. Harwood, 852 F.3d 568, 587–88 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n\\n As discussed above, a reasonable jury could find that Stoiker falsified or fabricated\\nevidence, and that the evidence did not consist solely of grand-jury testimony or preparation for\\nthat testimony. Stoiker argues, however, that even if he fabricated Vernon’s false statement, that\\nstatement could not have been material to the grand jury’s determination of probable cause, as it\\nwas not presented to the grand jury. Although Vernon may have testified to the grand jury in\\nconformance with his fabricated statement, Stoiker argues, it was Vernon’s testimony, not the\\nearlier statement, that impacted the grand jury’s decision.\\n\\n But a careful reading of King shows that fabricated evidence can be material to a grand\\njury’s determination of probable cause without being presented to the grand jury. If only evidence\\npresented to a grand jury could be material to that grand jury’s decision, plaintiffs would be faced\\nwith the Scylla and Charybdis of either admitting that the fabricated evidence was not material or\\nclaiming that it was material because it was presented to the grand jury, thereby gracing the\\nfabricator with the absolute immunity afforded to grand jury testimony. See id. at 589.\\n\\n Instead, plaintiffs can show that a fabrication was material to the grand jury’s determination\\nby showing “that the officer has made knowing or reckless false statements or has falsified or\\nfabricated evidence in the course of setting a prosecution in motion.” Id. Here, according to the\\nprosecutor, had Stoiker not fabricated Vernon’s statement, there would have been no grand jury.\\nBut even had there been one, Vernon would not have testified falsely before it. Stoiker’s\\nfabrication was therefore material to the grand jury’s determination because it “was material to the\\nultimate prosecution” of Plaintiffs.16 Id. at 587–88.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16Stoiker does not argue that there was sufficient evidence to find probable cause to prosecute Plaintiffs\\nabsent Vernon’s testimony.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 31\\n\\n\\n 2. Qualified Immunity\\n\\n The statute now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was originally passed in 1871. It was not\\nuntil the second half of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court recognized that § 1983\\nadmitted of an implicit doctrine, born of the common law, known as qualified immunity. See\\nPierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 555, 557 (1967). Since then this doctrine has grown considerably,\\nbut not without its critics. See, e.g., Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1162 (2018) (Sotomayor,\\nJ., dissenting) (arguing that a “one-sided approach to qualified immunity transforms the doctrine\\ninto an absolute shield for law enforcement officers, gutting the deterrent effect of the Fourth\\nAmendment”). Qualified immunity has outgrown its original justifications, which were “rooted\\nin historical analogy” and “based on the existence of common-law rules in 1871.” Wyatt v. Cole,\\n504 U.S. 158, 170 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring).\\n\\n Responding to the many and varied suits brought under § 1983, the judiciary recrafted that\\nlimited version of the doctrine of qualified immunity in an effort to protect public officials “from\\nundue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of liability.” Elder v.\\nHolloway, 510 U.S. 510, 514 (1994) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 806 (1982)).\\nWe therefore no longer “attempt[] to locate [the qualified immunity] standard in the common law\\nas it existed in 1871,” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1871 (2017) (Thomas, J., concurring), but\\ninstead attempt to determine whether a defendant, by his conduct, “violate[d] clearly established\\nstatutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow, 457\\nU.S. at 818.\\n\\n At issue in this appeal is whether, in 1975, the constitutional rights allegedly violated by\\nStoiker were sufficiently clearly established to deprive him of the protection of qualified immunity.\\nIt is a plaintiff’s burden to show that the right at issue was clearly established. Harris v. Klare,\\n902 F.3d 630, 637 (6th Cir. 2018). Although the Supreme Court “do[es] not require a case directly\\non point for a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must have placed the statutory or\\nconstitutional question beyond debate.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (alteration in\\noriginal) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308\\n(2015)). In examining “existing precedent,” “we may rely on decisions of the Supreme Court,\\ndecisions of this court and courts within this circuit, and in limited instances, on decisions of other\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 32\\n\\n\\ncircuits.” Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1006 (6th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); accord\\nHearring v. Sliwowski, 712 F.3d 275, 280 (6th Cir. 2013).\\n\\n The Supreme Court has recognized “that officials can still be on notice that their conduct\\nviolates established law even in novel factual circumstances” and has “rejected a requirement that\\nprevious cases be ‘fundamentally similar’” to the facts in a case to render qualified immunity\\ninapplicable. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002) (quoting United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S.\\n259, 263 (1997)); see also id. at 753–54 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“Certain actions so obviously\\nrun afoul of the law that an assertion of qualified immunity may be overcome even though court\\ndecisions have yet to address materially similar conduct.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).\\nAnd we have noted that “‘[g]eneral statements of the law’ are capable of giving clear and fair\\nwarning to officers even where ‘the very action in question has [not] previously been held\\nunlawful.’” Smith v. Cupp, 430 F.3d 766, 776–77 (6th Cir. 2005) (second alteration in original)\\n(quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)).\\n\\n a. Withholding Exculpatory Evidence\\n\\n In 1975, it was clearly established law that prosecutorial withholding of exculpatory\\nevidence violates a criminal defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. See Brady\\nv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86–87 (1963). Multiple circuits had also recognized by that time that\\n“Brady-derived” claims could be based on the conduct of law-enforcement officers—as distinct\\nfrom prosecutors—who had allegedly withheld exculpatory evidence. See Clarke v. Burke,\\n440 F.2d 853, 855 (7th Cir. 1971) (“This is not to say that there can never be a due process violation\\nif the prosecutor does not know that the police has in its possession evidence possibly favorable to\\nthe defendant . . . . It has been held . . . that knowledge of the police is knowledge of the prosecutor\\n. . . .” (citations omitted)); Smith v. Florida, 410 F.2d 1349, 1351 (5th Cir. 1969) (“[I]t makes no\\ndifference if the withholding is by the prosecutor or by officials other than the prosecutor.” (citing\\nBarbee v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary, 331 F.2d 842 (4th Cir. 1964))); Barbee, 331 F.2d at 846; cf.\\nJackson v. Wainwright, 390 F.2d 288, 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1968) (noting that “lower federal courts”\\napplying Brady “ha[d] emphasized the harm to the defendant rather than the prosecutor’s motive\\nin failing to disclose exculpatory evidence” and finding a violation of the “duty to disclose . . .\\nexculpatory statements” where “there was no evidence of the prosecutor’s bad faith or of\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 33\\n\\n\\noverreaching by the prosecution” (emphasis added)); Curran v. Delaware, 259 F.2d 707, 713 (3d\\nCir. 1958) (finding a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when a police officer perjured\\nhimself at trial, regardless of whether the prosecutor was aware of the perjury).\\n\\n In Barbee, decided the year after Brady, the Fourth Circuit addressed the habeas claim of\\na man who argued his conviction violated due process because law-enforcement officers had not\\ndisclosed the existence of ballistics and fingerprint reports that “cast grave doubt upon” his guilt.\\nBarbee, 331 F.2d at 844. Responding to the state’s argument that the man was required, and had\\nfailed, to show that the prosecutor knew about the reports, the court stated:\\n\\n Nor is the effect of the nondisclosure neutralized because the prosecuting attorney\\n was not shown to have had knowledge of the exculpatory evidence. Failure of the\\n police to reveal such material evidence in their possession is equally harmful to a\\n defendant whether the information is purposely, or negligently, withheld. And it\\n makes no difference if the withholding is by officials other than the prosecutor. The\\n police are also part of the prosecution, and the taint on the trial is no less if they,\\n rather than the State’s Attorney, were guilty of the nondisclosure. If the police\\n allow the State’s Attorney to produce evidence pointing to guilt without informing\\n him of other evidence in their possession which contradicts this inference, state\\n officers are practicing deception not only on the State’s Attorney but on the court\\n and the defendant . . . . If the police silence as to the existence of the reports resulted\\n from negligence rather than guile, the deception is no less damaging.\\n The duty to disclose is that of the state, which ordinarily acts through the\\n prosecuting attorney; but if he too is the victim of police suppression of the material\\n information, the state’s failure is not on that account excused.\\n\\nId. at 846 (footnotes omitted).\\n\\n The above cases, decided prior to Plaintiffs’ trials, make clear that the duty to disclose\\nevidence falls on the state as a whole and not on one officer of the state particularly, and it was\\ntherefore clearly established by the time of those trials that Stoiker had a Fourteenth Amendment\\nobligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.\\n\\n It was also clearly established that impeachment evidence, such as the fact that a witness\\nwas coerced into making a fabricated statement, qualifies as exculpatory. See Giglio v. United\\nStates, 405 U.S. 150, 153–55 (1972) (holding that evidence that the government had procured an\\ninformant’s testimony by suggesting he could escape prosecution through cooperating was\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 34\\n\\n\\n“material” evidence “affecting credibility” that should have been disclosed to the defense under\\nBrady).\\n\\n Stoiker argues that a Seventh Circuit case shows that it is not clearly established even now\\nthat officers are under a Brady obligation to disclose their own or fellow officers’ fabrication of\\nevidence. In Saunders-El v. Rohde, 778 F.3d 556, 558 (7th Cir. 2015), the plaintiff sued police\\nofficers under Brady, alleging that the officers failed to disclose that they had severely beaten the\\nplaintiff and planted his blood at a crime scene. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff had not\\nalleged a violation of Brady because “Brady does not require the creation of exculpatory evidence,\\nnor does it compel police officers to accurately disclose the circumstances of their investigations\\nto the prosecution.” Id. at 562.\\n\\n Even if we were bound by Saunders-El, which we are not, it would not foreclose our\\nholding. Because Brady and its progeny are concerned only with ensuring that a defendant\\nreceives a fair trial, “Brady is concerned only with cases in which the government possesses\\ninformation which the defendant does not.” United States v. Graham, 484 F.3d 413, 417 (6th Cir.\\n2007) (citation omitted). And so if a defendant knows at the time of trial that the government has\\nfabricated evidence, as in Saunders-El,17 officers do not violate Brady by failing to tell prosecutors\\nthat evidence has been fabricated.18 Had Plaintiffs argued that Stoiker violated Brady only by\\nfailing to disclose that Vernon’s statement was inaccurate, Stoiker’s reliance on Saunders-El might\\nbe appropriate, as Plaintiffs already knew that Vernon’s statement was inaccurate. But Plaintiffs\\ndid not know that Vernon’s statement had been coerced, and that fact could have been used to\\nimpeach Vernon’s testimony at trial. Therefore, Stoiker had an obligation to disclose that fact to\\nPlaintiffs.\\n\\n Finally, as discussed in section II(C)(1)(a), supra, an additional piece of exculpatory\\nevidence that Stoiker may have possessed was the knowledge of Vernon’s un-coerced statement\\n\\n\\n 17Indescribing the circumstances of the alleged fabrication of crime-scene evidence underlying his Brady\\nclaim, the Saunders-El plaintiff indicated that he had known about the fabrication all along. See Saunders-El, 778 F.3d\\nat 558.\\n 18This does not necessarily entail that such a situation would involve no other constitutional violations, of\\ncourse.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 35\\n\\n\\nto Terpay and Farmer that he had not seen the shooting at all. That statement was exculpatory\\nevidence separate from the fact that Vernon’s signed statement was false, and there is no evidence\\nthat Plaintiffs knew of Vernon’s exculpatory statement. Therefore, even if Saunders-El were\\ncontrolling, we would hold that Plaintiffs had alleged a violation of clearly established rights with\\nregard to Stoiker’s alleged withholding of exculpatory evidence of which Plaintiffs were not\\naware.\\n\\n Stoiker is not entitled to qualified immunity on the withholding-of-evidence claims.\\n\\n b. Fabricating Evidence\\n\\n It is difficult to countenance any argument that a law-enforcement officer in 1975 would\\nnot be “on notice [his] conduct [was] unlawful” when coercing a witness into perjuring himself in\\na capital trial. Hope, 536 U.S. at 739 (citation omitted). The obvious injustice inherent in\\nfabricating evidence to convict three innocent men of a capital offense put Stoiker on notice that\\nhis conduct was unlawful. Cf. id. at 745 (stating, in evaluating qualified immunity in the Eighth\\nAmendment context, that “[t]he obvious cruelty inherent in [tying a prisoner to a hitching post “for\\nan extended period of time in a position that was painful, and under circumstances that were both\\ndegrading and dangerous”] should have provided respondents with some notice that their alleged\\nconduct violated [the prisoner’s] constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment”).\\n\\n More concretely, as far back as 1935, the Supreme Court recognized that the introduction\\nof fabricated evidence violates “the fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our\\ncivil and political institutions.” Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935) (citing Hebert v.\\nLouisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316 (1926)). And in 1942, the Supreme Court held that when a witness\\nperjures himself because of threats from police officers, the defendant suffers “a deprivation of\\nrights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.” Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 216 (1942).\\n\\n The only difference between those cases and the present one is that those cases involved\\nthe use of fabricated evidence at trial, whereas this one involves the use of fabricated evidence to\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 36\\n\\n\\naffect a jury in a manner other than by introducing the evidence at trial. 19 However, we have\\nrecognized that a Fourth Amendment claim based on the fabrication of evidence does not require\\nthat “false testimony [have been] given at trial.” Spurlock, 167 F.3d at 1007. And we can see no\\nprincipled distinction, for purposes of qualified immunity, between such a claim and Plaintiffs’\\nclaims here that they were deprived of their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights through the\\nuse of fabricated evidence. The alleged misconduct here is the use of the falsified statement to\\nprocure testimony in conformance with it—the same type of misconduct that we have previously\\nfound supported recovery for a constitutional tort, irrespective of the stage at which the fabrication\\ntainted the proceeding. See id.\\n\\n As far as clearly established law in 1975 is concerned, several months before the events at\\nissue in this case, this court stated that Mooney “made it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment right\\nto due process prohibits a knowing and deliberate use by a state of perjured evidence in order to\\nobtain a conviction.” Burks v. Egeler, 512 F.2d 221, 224 (6th Cir. 1975). More recently, we have\\ncited Brady, Pyle, and Mooney in finding that a defendant officer could not “seriously contend that\\na reasonable police officer would not know that [his] actions [including fabricating evidence] were\\ninappropriate and performed in violation of an individual’s constitutional . . . rights.” Spurlock,\\n167 F.3d at 1005–06 (also citing Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 274 (1994)). In Spurlock (a\\nmalicious-prosecution case), the defendant argued that Albright, and the Sixth Circuit case\\nexplicitly finding that malicious prosecution violated clearly established rights, had been decided\\nafter his conduct and therefore did not put him on notice. See Spurlock, 167 F.3d at 1006 n.19\\n(discussing generally Albright and Smith v. Williams, 78 F.3d 585, 1996 WL 99329 (6th Cir. 1996)\\n(unpublished table opinion)). Rejecting that argument, we stated that “the fundamental principle\\nthat an individual has a constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution . . . was clearly\\nestablished well before either of [the] cases [cited by the defendant] was decided.” Id. The\\nreasoning in Spurlock is sound, and we follow it in holding that Stoiker was on notice in 1975 that\\nit was unlawful for him to fabricate evidence.\\n\\n\\n\\n 19Although we assume for the purpose of this analysis that the allegedly fabricated evidence did not affect\\nthe proceedings through being used at trial, we again note that Vernon’s statement was used by defense counsel at\\nJackson’s trial, and a reasonable jury could find that the statement was considered by Jackson’s jury in some way.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 37\\n\\n\\n Stoiker is not entitled to qualified immunity on the fabrication-of-evidence claims.\\n\\n c. Malicious Prosecution\\n\\n Stoiker argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs “fail to identify\\na pre-1975 case that would clearly establish that a police officer could be held liable for malicious\\nprosecution where he did not actively participate in the prosecution [and] did not testify before the\\ngrand jury or at trial.” Stoiker Br. at 51. Stoiker’s argument admits of two interpretations, one of\\nwhich is possibly valid but has false premises and the other of which has true premises but is\\ninvalid.\\n\\n Stoiker might be arguing that the state of malicious prosecution law in 1975 was in flux\\nand that it was not clear at that time that he could be liable under a malicious prosecution cause of\\naction. That may be true, but it does not follow that he is protected by qualified immunity.\\nWhether a defendant is protected by qualified immunity turns not on whether the defendant was\\non notice that his actions satisfied the elements of a particular cause of action, but instead on\\nwhether the defendant was on notice that his actions violated the laws of the United States.\\nRecently, when presented with a similar argument to Stoiker’s, we responded:\\n\\n [The defendant] spends a considerable portion of his brief illustrating why\\n it is not clear that he should be liable for malicious prosecution, thus reasoning that\\n he is entitled to qualified immunity. Yet, his claim that the contours of our\\n jurisprudence concerning malicious prosecution are not entirely clear misses the\\n point. Our inquiry is whether [the defendant’s] alleged actions—arresting and\\n detaining [the plaintiff] based on false pretenses and then seeking an arrest warrant\\n based on these false statements—violated [the plaintiff’s] clearly established\\n constitutional rights. We conclude that they did.\\n\\nMiller v. Maddox, 866 F.3d 386, 395 (6th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2622 (2018). In\\nshort, “the sine qua non of the ‘clearly established’ inquiry is ‘fair warning,’” Baynes v. Cleland,\\n799 F.3d 600, 612–13 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 741), and we ask only “whether\\nit would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he\\nconfronted,” id. at 610 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001)).\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 38\\n\\n\\n Stoiker’s argument may, on the other hand, be that it was not clear in 1975 that an officer\\nwho fabricated evidence but did not testify for the prosecution had violated the laws of the United\\nStates. If this were true, he would be protected by qualified immunity. It is not, and he is not.\\n\\n For Plaintiffs’ claims to survive summary judgment, it must have been clearly established\\nthat where an officer fabricates evidence against a defendant and then withholds exculpatory\\nevidence from the prosecution, but does not testify at trial or a grand jury hearing, he is\\n“influenc[ing]” the decision to initiate the prosecution in a way that violates the defendant’s\\nconstitutional rights. Mills v. Barnard, 869 F.3d 473, 480 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n\\n Stoiker cites no case requiring testimony as an element of a § 1983 claim for malicious\\nprosecution and no case suggesting that testifying is required in order to influence the decision to\\nprosecute. To the contrary, this court held long before 1975 that if officers arrested a suspect\\nwithout a warrant (in violation of state law), and “subjected [that suspect] to fraudulent trial in a\\ncriminal case” that resulted in wrongful conviction, the officers caused the suspect “a deprivation\\nof [her] liberty without due process of law.” McShane v. Moldovan, 172 F.2d 1016, 1019 (6th Cir.\\n1949). The court in McShane made no mention of whether the officers had testified against the\\nsuspect, and with good cause: the crux of the violation is the institution of judicial processes\\nwithout probable cause, which does not require a testimonial act.\\n\\n In conjunction with the cases cited in section II(C)(2)(b), supra, McShane is sufficient to\\nhave clearly established before May 1975 that an officer need not testify in order to violate a\\ndefendant’s right to due process. That the phrase “malicious prosecution” was not used in that\\ncase to describe the cause of action is immaterial; what matters are the actions allegedly taken by\\nStoiker, not the name we give to the claim used to seek redress for those actions. Stoiker is\\ntherefore not entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious-prosecution claims.\\n\\n 3. Conclusion\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment\\nto Stoiker as to the Fourteenth Amendment claims for fabrication of evidence and for withholding\\nof exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady, and the Fourth Amendment claims for malicious\\nprosecution. But we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment as to the conspiracy claims.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 39\\n\\n\\nD. Cleveland’s Motion for Summary Judgment\\n\\n The cause of action created by § 1983 may be exercised only against a “person\\nwho . . . causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the\\njurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the\\nConstitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Supreme Court has interpreted the word “person”\\nbroadly, and certain polities, including municipalities, are considered persons for purposes of\\n§ 1983 liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).\\n\\n Although “person” has been given a wide meaning under § 1983, when the person is a\\nmunicipality, liability attaches only under a narrow set of circumstances: “A municipality may not\\nbe held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory—in other words, ‘solely because it\\nemploys a tortfeasor.’” D’Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378, 388–89 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting\\nMonell, 436 U.S. at 691). Instead, a plaintiff must show that “through its deliberate conduct, the\\nmunicipality was the ‘moving force’ behind the injury alleged.” Alman v. Reed, 703 F.3d 887,\\n903 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997)). A plaintiff\\ndoes this by showing that the municipality had a “policy or custom” that caused the violation of\\nhis rights. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694.\\n\\n There are four methods of showing the municipality had such a policy or custom: the\\nplaintiff may prove “(1) the existence of an illegal official policy or legislative enactment; (2) that\\nan official with final decision making authority ratified illegal actions; (3) the existence of a policy\\nof inadequate training or supervision; or (4) the existence of a custom of tolerance or acquiescence\\nof federal rights violations.” Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 478 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation\\nomitted).\\n\\n Plaintiffs argue that they have provided evidence sufficient to make out a Monell claim\\nunder the first theory, as GPO 19-73 caused the violation of their Brady rights, and the third theory,\\nas Cleveland’s failure to train its officers in Brady caused the violation of their Brady rights.\\nCleveland disagrees, as did the district court.20\\n\\n\\n 20Plaintiffsalso argue that they have a third Monell claim based on Cleveland’s failure to adopt an adequate\\npolicy to prevent Brady violations. The district court ruled against Plaintiffs on this theory, finding that they had not\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 40\\n\\n\\n 1. Official Policy\\n\\n “[T]o satisfy the Monell requirements a plaintiff must ‘identify the policy, connect the\\npolicy to the city itself and show that the particular injury was incurred because of the execution\\nof that policy.’” Garner v. Memphis Police Dep’t, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting\\nCoogan v. City of Wixom, 820 F.2d 170, 176 (6th Cir. 1987)).\\n\\n When proceeding under the first theory of Monell liability, under which a plaintiff must\\nshow an official policy or legislative enactment, the plaintiff must show that there were “formal\\nrules or understandings—often but not always committed to writing—that [were] intended to, and\\n[did], establish fixed plans of action to be followed under similar circumstances consistently and\\nover time.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480–81 (1986) (emphasis added).\\n\\n Plaintiffs argue that GPO 19-73 reflects just such a policy: it was a formal rule; it was\\npromulgated by Cleveland; and it was illegal because it authorized Brady violations. Cleveland\\nagrees that GPO 19-73 was a policy and that it was promulgated by Cleveland but argues that GPO\\n19-73 is consistent with Brady and, therefore, could not cause Brady violations.21\\n\\n GPO 19-73 read in pertinent part as follows:\\n\\n TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT\\n In a letter to this Department, County Prosecutor John T. Corrigan has defined the\\n legal rights of defense attorneys and courts to statements, reports and other items\\n in criminal cases. His letter, as a part of this order, shall be considered an integral\\n\\n\\nestablished that Cleveland had failed to adopt adequate policies to train officers in Brady’s requirements. Jackson v.\\nCity of Cleveland, CASE NO. 1:15CV989, 2017 WL 3336607, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017). We decline to analyze\\nthis theory separately. Plaintiffs cite no Sixth Circuit or Supreme Court case in support of their theory that they have\\na Monell claim—separate from their failure-to-train claim—based on Cleveland’s unconstitutional failure to adopt a\\npolicy. Instead, the relevant cases they cite are failure-to-train cases. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 391\\n(1989); Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 755 (6th Cir. 2006); Miller v. Calhoun Cty., 408 F.3d 803, 816–\\n17 (6th Cir. 2005). That makes sense: the harm alleged and the analysis required under the failure-to-train theory are\\nfunctionally indistinguishable from the harm Plaintiffs allege and the analysis they wish us to conduct under the\\nfailure-to-adopt-a-policy theory. Indeed, the district court stated that to prevail on their failure-to-adopt theory,\\nPlaintiffs needed to show Cleveland was deliberately indifferent to the high likelihood of violations in the absence of\\na policy. See Jackson, 2017 WL 3336607, at *4 (citing Miller, 408 F.3d at 816–17). As we discuss below, Plaintiffs\\nmust make the same showing for their failure-to-train claim.\\n 21Cleveland also argues that Plaintiffs cannot show that GPO 19-73 caused any Brady violations because\\nthey cannot demonstrate any Brady violations to begin with. As discussed in section II(C)(1)(a), supra, that argument\\nis unavailing.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 41\\n\\n\\n part of criminal case preparations procedures and all members shall comply with\\n its provisions.\\n\\nR. 101-7, PageID 1630.\\n\\n The letter from the County Prosecutor, incorporated into GPO 19-73, read in pertinent part\\nas follows:\\n\\n The Ohio Supreme Court has recently promulgated Criminal Rules of\\n Procedure . . . . Particularly, Rule 16 is going to be the concern of police\\n departments and prosecutors.\\n ....\\n NO POLICE DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED OR SHALL GIVE TO DEFENSE\\n COUNSEL AND/OR ANY COURT ANY RECORD, PAPER, STATEMENT,\\n REPORT OR TANGIBLE OBJECT OF A CRIMINAL CASE.\\n Under proper circumstances under this rule, by application to the Prosecuting\\n Attorney and/or the court, the defense counsel may be entitled to the following:\\n\\n 1. Statement of a defendant or co-defendant, written, recorded, or a\\n summary of an oral statement.\\n 2. Defendant’s prior felony record.\\n 3. Inspection of [physical evidence] material to the preparation of the\\n defense or intended for use by the Prosecuting Attorney as evidence.\\n 4. Reports of results of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests\\n or experiments.\\n 5. Names and addresses of witnesses.\\n 6. Evidence favorable to the defendant.\\n\\n EXCEPTION TO THE FOREGOING:\\n The foregoing does not authorize the discovery or the inspection of reports,\\n memoranda, or other internal documents made by the Prosecuting Attorney or his\\n agents (police departments are his agents) in connection with the investigation or\\n prosecution of the case, or of statements made by witnesses or prospective witnesses\\n to state agents.\\n\\nId. (emphases added).\\n\\n Plaintiffs argue that GPO 19-73 is appropriately read as providing that defendants are\\ngenerally entitled to favorable evidence, but that the entitlement does not apply if the favorable\\nevidence is in the form of witness statements. The individual Defendants were therefore acting in\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 42\\n\\n\\nconformance with GPO 19-73 when they failed to turn over to prosecutors Vernon’s un-coerced,\\nexculpatory statement that he had not seen the shooting, even though this withholding violated\\nPlaintiffs’ Brady rights.\\n\\n In rebuttal, Cleveland argues, first, that the language of GPO 19-73 did not permit officers\\nto withhold exculpatory evidence from prosecutors, and, second, that even if it did, it must be read\\nin conjunction with other rules by which officers were bound in order to determine whether\\nCleveland had a policy of permitting the withholding of exculpatory evidence from prosecutors.\\n\\n Because a city may be liable under Monell for a policy of permitting constitutional\\nviolations regardless of whether the policy is written, see Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 480–81, we ask\\nwhether GPO 19-73 and the other rules were inconsistent with a policy of withholding evidence\\nin violation of Brady. If they were not inconsistent, then a genuine issue of material fact exists as\\nto whether Cleveland had such a policy, and summary judgment was improper on Plaintiffs’ first\\nMonell theory.\\n\\n a. The Text of GPO 19-73\\n\\n Cleveland notes that the only language in GPO 19-73 discussing officers’ disclosure\\nobligations simply made it clear that they were not permitted to give any physical evidence directly\\nto a defendant; it did not say officers were permitted to withhold exculpatory evidence from\\nprosecutors. Under this reading of GPO 19-73, the purpose of the order was to ensure that officers\\ndid not give evidence directly to defendants and, perhaps as something of an addendum, let officers\\nknow what prosecutors might have to do with the evidence officers gave them. The section\\npermitting disclosure of exculpatory witness statements, after all, argues Cleveland, was prefaced\\nby the statement that “by application to the Prosecuting Attorney and/or the court, the defense\\ncounsel may be entitled” to various evidence, and that language appears to concern the interaction\\nbetween prosecutors and defendants, not officers and prosecutors.\\n\\n Cleveland’s interpretation of GPO 19-73 may be plausible, but it is not the only reasonable\\ninterpretation. The incorporated letter from the County Prosecutor informed Cleveland police\\nofficers that “Rule 16 is going to be the concern of police departments and prosecutors,” not just\\nprosecutors. (emphasis added). The incorporated letter recreated in part the text of Rule 16, which\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 43\\n\\n\\ndealt only with what sorts of evidence required disclosure, not with who would do the disclosing.\\nThat GPO 19-73 told officers that Rule 16 was their concern and provided the text of that Rule,\\nwhich described which evidence must be disclosed, could suggest that GPO 19-73 was\\npromulgated for the purpose of ensuring officers knew what particular evidence they had to\\ndisclose to prosecutors so that the prosecutors could then disclose that evidence to the defense.\\nUnder this reading, GPO 19-73 did more than simply inform officers that they should not give\\nevidence directly to defendants; it also served as the directive to officers as to what evidence they\\nshould, and should not, give to prosecutors. Particular to the last point, the “EXCEPTION TO\\nTHE FOREGOING” provision could be read to direct officers not to turn over to prosecutors the\\ndocuments described in that provision, which included “statements made by witnesses or\\nprospective witnesses to state agents.”\\n\\n Therefore, one reasonable reading of GPO 19-73 is that it (1) spoke to police officers about\\ntheir disclosure obligations and (2) informed them that they did not need to disclose exculpatory\\nwitness statements to the Prosecutor’s Office. Because GPO 19-73 can be read as consistent with\\na policy of not disclosing exculpatory witness statements, we turn to the other written rules to see\\nwhether any of those foreclosed such a policy.\\n\\n b. Other Rules\\n\\n Cleveland’s second argument for why a reasonable jury could not read GPO 19-73 as\\nembodying a policy of allowing officers to withhold exculpatory witness statements from\\nprosecutors is stronger, but ultimately unavailing. Instead of looking at GPO 19-73 in a vacuum,\\nCleveland urges us to consider the text of GPO 19-73 in the context of other rules and regulations.\\nThese other sources fall into two groups: sections of the Division of Police’s Manual of Rules and\\nthe full text of Rule 16.\\n\\n i. The Manual\\n\\n The Manual contained a number of rules that were applicable to all Cleveland police\\nofficers in 1975. Cleveland points to four rules as requiring, when read in conjunction with GPO\\n19-73, that officers disclose exculpatory witness statements to prosecutors. While all laudable,\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 44\\n\\n\\neach of these policies can, however, reasonably be interpreted as consistent with a reading of GPO\\n19-73 that permitted officers to withhold exculpatory witness statements from prosecutors.\\n\\n Rule 14\\n Case Preparation and Fraud Unit\\n ....\\n (2) The officer in charge shall cause statements to be taken from persons\\n brought to the Unit in the course of criminal investigations; and shall see that such\\n statements are properly filed and preserved. These statements shall be available\\n only to the officers and members of the Division of Police who are interested in the\\n presentation of a particular case, to the office of the County Prosecutor or the Law\\n Department of the City of Cleveland. Under no circumstances shall they be given\\n or exhibited to any other person without the written consent of the Chief of Police.\\nR. 102-2, PageID 1910–11.\\n\\n Rule 14 only applied to statements given by persons brought to the Case Preparation and\\nFraud Unit, and there was no requirement that all witnesses be brought to that unit when giving a\\nstatement.22 Nor did it require officers to affirmatively disclose exculpatory statements to\\nprosecutors; it required only that detectives make statements available. This reading is consistent\\nwith testimony that it was the practice of Cleveland detectives to withhold evidence not contained\\nin arrest reports, witness forms, or written statements unless it was specifically requested by\\nprosecutors.\\n\\n Rule 66 [No Title]\\n (1) Officers and members prosecuting persons charged with a crime shall\\n thoroughly familiarize themselves with all of the facts and details concerning such\\n case, so that all of the evidence may be properly presented to the court.\\n\\nId. at PageID 1941.\\n\\n Rule 66 said nothing about disclosure of evidence to prosecutors, much less exculpatory\\nevidence. More importantly, it only required familiarity with the facts and details of a case insofar\\nas such familiarity was required to “properly present” those facts to a court. As discussed above,\\nGPO 19-73 can reasonably be interpreted as not requiring officers to disclose exculpatory witness\\n\\n\\n\\n 22Vernon does not appear to have been brought to the Case Preparation and Fraud Unit.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 45\\n\\n\\nstatements to prosecutors for disclosure in turn to defendants (or, presumably, to courts). Read in\\nconjunction with GPO 19-73, then, Rule 66 can reasonably be interpreted as not applying to\\nexculpatory witness statements.\\n\\n Rule 77 [No Title]\\n (1) Officers and members shall report on all matters referred to or investigated\\n by them. Such reports may be either verbal or written, as the officer in charge may\\n direct.\\n (2) They shall, before reporting off duty, make such written reports as may be\\n required on all matters coming to their attention or assigned to them for\\n investigation. If the investigation has not been completed before he reports [sic]\\n off duty, he shall make a report stating the progress made.\\n (3) He shall address his written reports to his superior officer and shall sign the\\n reports, giving his full name and rank, title or number. When required, such reports\\n shall be examined and signed by a superior officer. Written reports shall be\\n forwarded to the commanding officer.\\n\\nId. at PageID 1945–46.\\n\\n Rule 77 required that officers make reports concerning their cases. It did not require that\\nsuch reports contain all exculpatory information that they may have learned. Importantly, it did\\nnot require that any reports be disclosed to prosecutors, and it allowed reports to be made verbally\\nto a superior officer, a method well suited to the withholding of information from prosecutors.\\n\\n Rule 78 [No Title]\\n Written and verbal reports, testimony in court and conversation of any kind\\n affecting the Division of Police, its officers, members, employees or persons under\\n its jurisdiction shall be truthful and unbiased.\\n\\nId. at PageID 1946.\\n\\n Even read in conjunction with GPO 19-73 and the other rules discussed herein, the\\nlimitations of Rule 78 render it incapable of carrying the weight with which Cleveland burdens it.\\nIt required not that all reports be complete but only that they be truthful and unbiased. 23 Nor did\\n\\n\\n 23Consider, for example, two officers who have coerced a witness into making what they believe to be a\\ntruthful statement: a report detailing that statement but excluding the coercion would comport with Rule 78. More\\ninsidiously, consider two officers who have coerced a witness into making a statement that they know to be false and\\nwho file a report stating that the witness made that statement. That report would be both true and unbiased and\\ntherefore consistent with Rule 78: the witness did, after all, make the (false) statement contained in the report.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 46\\n\\n\\nit require that any reports, which may have been made verbally to a superior officer, be disclosed\\nto prosecutors.\\n\\n None of the rules contained within the Manual, taken individually or collectively, are\\ninconsistent with an interpretation of GPO 19-73 that permits officers to withhold exculpatory\\ninformation from prosecutors. These rules can be read by a reasonable jury as consistent with a\\npolicy of permitting the withholding of exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady.\\n\\n ii. Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 16\\n\\n Cleveland also argues that the full text of Rule 16 made clear that defendants were entitled\\nto all exculpatory evidence, including witness statements. The version of Rule 16 in force in 1975\\nread in pertinent part as follows:\\n\\n (B) Disclosure of evidence by the prosecuting attorney.\\n (1) Information subject to disclosure.\\n ....\\n (f) Disclosure of evidence favorable to defendant.\\n [description of exculpatory evidence]\\n (g) In camera inspection of witness’ [sic] statement.\\n [description of procedure for in camera inspection of witness\\n statements]\\n (2) Information not subject to disclosure.\\n Except as provided in subsections (B)(1)(a), (b), (d), (f), and (g), this\\n rule does not authorize the discovery or inspection of reports,\\n memoranda, or other internal documents made by the prosecuting\\n attorney or his agents in connection with the investigation or\\n prosecution of the case, or of statements made by witnesses or\\n prospective witnesses to state agents.\\n\\nProposed Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, 46 Ohio BAR 817, 849–52 (1973) (emphases\\nadded).\\n\\n Unlike GPO 19-73 and the rules in the Manual, Rule 16 made it quite clear that defendants\\nwere entitled to exculpatory witness reports. Rule 16(B)(2) excepted witness statements from the\\ngeneral disclosure requirements, using language almost identical to that used in GPO 19-73.\\nUnlike GPO 19-73, however, Rule 16(B)(2) included an additional clause, excepting exculpatory\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 47\\n\\n\\nwitness statements from the exception for witness statements generally. Rule 16(B)(2) thereby\\nplaced exculpatory witness statements back into the universe of mandatory disclosure. As a result,\\nthe full text of Rule 16 made it clear that prosecutors were obligated to disclose all exculpatory\\nwitness statements to defendants.\\n\\n This fact does not, however, save Cleveland, at least not at this stage of the litigation.\\nCleveland has provided no evidence that Cleveland required that its officers follow the official\\nversion of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, that those rules were followed by Cleveland\\nofficers, or that Cleveland officers were even aware of those rules. There is evidence, of course,\\nthat Cleveland officers were bound by Rule 16: GPO 19-73 can reasonably be interpreted as\\ndirecting that Cleveland officers follow the requirements of Rule 16. But GPO 19-73 could be\\nread as directing Cleveland officers to follow a modified version of Rule 16—the version included\\nin GPO 19-73.24\\n\\n And that version differed in at least one material way from the official Rule 16. Both GPO\\n19-73 and the official Rule 16 included a paragraph excepting witness statements from the general\\ndisclosure requirements. But although, as mentioned, that paragraph in the official Rule 16\\ncontained an additional clause in paragraph (B)(2) excepting (by reference to the requirements of\\n(B)(1)(f) and (g)) exculpatory witness statements from that exception—and the paragraph in the\\nofficial Rule thereby required that exculpatory witness statements be disclosed—the version of\\nRule 16 in GPO 19-73 omitted the clause in that paragraph excepting exculpatory witness\\nstatements. The paragraph in the version of Rule 16 included in GPO 19-73 merely provided:\\n\\n The foregoing [disclosure requirements] do[] not authorize the discovery or\\n inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal documents made by the\\n Prosecuting Attorney or his agents (police departments are his agents) in connection\\n with the investigation or prosecution of the case, or of statements made by\\n witnesses or prospective witnesses to state agents.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24GPO 19-73 did not indicate that the version of Rule 16 it included was in any way different from the official\\nRule 16 or suggest that officers either consult the official text of Rule 16 or consult prosecutors as to the duties of\\nofficers or prosecutors under Rule 16.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 48\\n\\n\\nR. 101-7, PageID 1630. It was this modified version of Rule 16—the one that could plausibly be\\ninterpreted as allowing the withholding of exculpatory witness statements—by which a reasonable\\njury could find Cleveland officers were bound.\\n\\n c. Conclusion\\n\\n GPO 19-73 and the rules in Cleveland’s police manual, read together, could be understood\\nto authorize Cleveland officers to withhold exculpatory witness statements from prosecutors. It is\\nfor a jury to consider GPO 19-73 and the rules in the Manual in light of Cleveland’s actual practices\\nand determine whether Cleveland had a policy of permitting Brady violations. Because Cleveland\\ndoes not contest that it promulgated GPO 19-73 or that the individual Defendants were acting in\\nconformance with GPO 19-73 when they withheld Vernon’s exculpatory statements, a reasonable\\njury could find Cleveland liable under Monell. See Garner, 8 F.3d at 364–65.\\n\\n Because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Cleveland had a policy of\\npermitting Brady violations, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Cleveland on\\nPlaintiffs’ first Monell theory was improper.\\n\\n 2. Failure to Train\\n\\n Plaintiffs also argue that in 1975, Cleveland had “a policy of inadequate training or\\nsupervision” of its officers as to their obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady.\\nBurgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 478 (6th Cir. 2013).\\n\\n In order to show that a municipality is liable for a failure to train its employees, a plaintiff\\n“must establish that: 1) the City’s training program was inadequate for the tasks that officers must\\nperform; 2) the inadequacy was the result of the City’s deliberate indifference; and 3) the\\ninadequacy was closely related to or actually caused the injury.” Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d\\n461, 469 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1046 (6th Cir. 1992)).\\n\\n Cleveland argues that Plaintiffs lack evidence sufficient for a jury to find that either of the\\nfirst two requirements is met. We address each requirement in turn.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 49\\n\\n\\n a. Adequacy of Cleveland’s Brady Training\\n\\n When determining whether a municipality has adequately trained its employees,\\n“the focus must be on adequacy of the training program in relation to the tasks the particular\\nofficers must perform.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 (1989).\\n\\n Plaintiffs argue that Cleveland’s training program was deficient in that it failed to train\\nofficers in their Brady obligations and that, to the degree that those officers received training in\\nthe disclosure of evidence to prosecutors, they were trained to withhold exculpatory evidence.\\nCleveland disagrees, citing deposition testimony to show that officers received official training in\\ntheir disclosure obligations as well as unofficial on-the-job training in their disclosure obligations.\\nThe district court agreed with Cleveland.\\n\\n It is undisputed that Cleveland officers received, and were trained in, the Manual. But as\\ndiscussed in section II(D)(1)(b)(i), supra, those rules could be read as insufficient to inform\\nofficers of their disclosure obligations, as none of the rules in the Manual explicitly mandated\\ndisclosure of exculpatory witness statements to prosecutors. The only rule from the Manual that\\ncame close to requiring disclosure of witness statements to prosecutors was Rule 14, which applied\\nonly to witness statements made to the Case Preparation and Fraud Unit, and it only required that\\nthose statements be available to prosecutors, not that they be proactively disclosed.\\n\\n Cleveland presents deposition testimony that “in the police academy . . . [y]ou were told to\\ngive [exculpatory evidence] to . . . a prosecutor” and that “Cleveland police officers are trained\\nand instructed to turn over the entire product of their investigation to the prosecutor.” R. 103,\\nPageID 3664, 3672.\\n\\n Cleveland also presents evidence that officers were trained on the job to disclose evidence.\\nOne officer testified that although the rule was not always followed, “the rule was, you should turn\\nover all evidence acquired in an investigation to the prosecution.” R. 104, PageID 3949–50. That\\nofficer also testified:\\n\\n Police officers that conduct interviews are instructed to write down the statement\\n as close to what the witness said as possible, whether it is good or bad. But it is\\n part of what was said, and it needs to be, the entire thing needs to be presented to\\n the prosecutor, the entire thing, not parts of it, the entire thing.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 50\\n\\n\\nId. at PageID 3972.\\n\\n But Plaintiffs provide testimony that conflicts with Cleveland’s account of the training\\nreceived, both in the academy and on the job. One former officer testified that he was not “taught\\nanything at police academy about police officers’ obligation to disclose Brady evidence” and that\\nhe did not remember having “ever attend[ed] any training concerning police officers’ obligation\\nto disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.” R. 114-20, PageID 5127–29.\\n\\n Another former officer testified that he could not recall having ever “attend[ed] any course,\\nor receive[d] any training in which [he] learned that officers have an obligation to disclose\\nexculpatory evidence to criminal defendants or prosecutors.” R. 114-35, PageID 5492–93.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 51\\n\\n\\n A third former officer testified, “As far as training, I would have to say no” training was\\nprovided teaching officers they were required “to place any witness statements in the official file\\nor otherwise make them available to criminal defendants, defense counsels, and prosecutors.”\\nR. 102, PageID 1776. He also testified that there was “[n]o specific training” requiring police\\ndetectives “to disclose exculpatory evidence.” Id. at PageID 1777.\\n\\n The district court interpreted these statements as indicating only that no official training\\nhad been provided, not that no on-the-job training had been provided. Jackson v. City of Cleveland,\\nCASE NO. 1:15CV989, 2017 WL 3336607, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017). We think this a\\ncramped interpretation of these statements. One officer testified that he could not recall having\\n“receive[d] any training in which [he] learned that officers have an obligation to disclose\\nexculpatory evidence.” (emphasis added). Another testified that he received “no [training] to place\\nany witness statements in the official file.” (emphasis added). A reasonable jury could interpret\\nthis testimony as indicating that officers received no training, on-the-job or otherwise, in their\\nBrady obligations generally or in their obligation to provide witness statements to prosecutors.\\n\\n There is therefore a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Cleveland’s training of its\\nofficers in their disclosure obligations was sufficient, and summary judgment was inappropriate\\nas to this issue. See Burgess, 735 F.3d at 471.\\n\\n b. Cleveland’s Deliberate Indifference\\n\\n “[D]eliberate indifference is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a municipal\\nactor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action.” Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown,\\n520 U.S. 397, 410 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In other words, the risk of a\\nconstitutional violation arising as a result of the inadequacies in the municipal policy must be\\n‘plainly obvious.’” Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 752 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Bd.\\nof Cty. Comm’rs, 520 U.S. at 412).\\n\\n A plaintiff may meet this standard by showing either (1) “prior instances of\\nunconstitutional conduct demonstrating that the City had notice that the training was deficient and\\nlikely to cause injury but ignored it” or (2) “evidence of a single violation of federal rights,\\naccompanied by a showing that the City had failed to train its employees to handle recurring\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 52\\n\\n\\nsituations presenting an obvious potential for such a violation.” Campbell v. City of Springboro,\\n700 F.3d 779, 794 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Plinton v. Cty. of Summit, 540 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir.\\n2008)).\\n\\n Plaintiffs do not contend that they can show Cleveland’s failure to train was deliberately\\nindifferent via the first method.25 Instead, Plaintiffs argue that they satisfy the second method of\\nshowing deliberate indifference because the “likelihood that the situation [i.e., a situation requiring\\npolice to handle exculpatory evidence] will recur and the predictability that an officer lacking\\nspecific tools to handle that situation will violate citizens’ rights” mean that failing to train officers\\nin their disclosure obligations demonstrates deliberate indifference to the “highly predictable\\nconsequence” that untrained officers will violate Brady. Jackson Br. at 65 (quoting Bd. of Cty.\\nComm’rs, 520 U.S. at 409–10).\\n\\n Plaintiffs cite Gregory in support of their conclusion. In Gregory, the plaintiff presented\\nevidence that the defendant municipality had failed to train its officers in the handling of\\nexculpatory evidence. See 444 F.3d at 753–54. This court reversed a grant of summary judgment\\nto the municipality, holding that a “custom of failing to train its officers on the handling of\\nexculpatory materials is sufficient to establish the requisite fault on the part of the [municipality]”\\nfor a deliberate-indifference claim. Id. at 754 (citing Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 520 U.S. at 407).\\n\\n Cleveland attempts to distinguish Gregory on the ground that in Gregory, the plaintiff had\\npresented evidence sufficient for a jury to find that the defendant municipality had failed to train\\nits officers, while in this case, Cleveland argues that the “undisputed evidence in the record\\nestablishes that the detectives in the City’s Homicide Detective Bureau received on-the-job\\ntraining about the evidence that they were required to turn over to the prosecutor.” Cleveland Br.\\nat 48. But, as discussed above, the evidence is not undisputed. Plaintiffs have provided testimony\\nsufficient for a jury to find that Cleveland did not in fact train its officers in their disclosure\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 25Findingthat Plaintiffs had not shown Cleveland provided inadequate training to its officers, the district\\ncourt did not address whether Plaintiffs could make out the deliberate-indifference element by either method. See\\nJackson, 2017 WL 3336607, at *5.\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 53\\n\\n\\nobligations. Gregory therefore controls, and there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to\\nfind that Cleveland was deliberately indifferent to the risk of Brady violations.\\n\\n 3. Conclusion\\n\\n Plaintiffs having shown that there are genuine issues of material fact both as to whether\\nCleveland had an official policy of permitting the withholding of exculpatory witness statements\\nfrom prosecutors and as to whether Cleveland had a policy of failing to train its officers in their\\ndisclosure obligations, summary judgment was inappropriate on the Monell claims. See Burgess,\\n735 F.3d at 471.26 We therefore REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to\\nCleveland as to those claims.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n In 1940, then-Attorney General Robert H. Jackson admonished prosecutors: “Your\\npositions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and\\nvigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically\\nloses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.” 27 In the present case, by contrast, one\\nlaw-enforcement officer testified that “winning the case was what it was all about. It wasn’t about\\nwhat was fair, it wasn’t about what was honest, it was about winning.” R. 104, PageID 3967–68.\\nIf that sentiment explains the circumstances of Plaintiffs’ convictions, then those convictions were\\nthe result of a process that was the very antithesis of Jackson’s famous admonition.\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to\\nStoiker as to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for conspiracy to fabricate evidence and withhold\\nexculpatory evidence. We REVERSE and REMAND the district court’s (1) judgment on the\\npleadings for Cleveland as to Plaintiffs’ indemnification claims; (2) denial of Plaintiffs’ motions\\nto amend their complaints to substitute the administrator of the estates of the deceased Defendants\\nas a party in their place; (3) grant of summary judgment to Stoiker as to the § 1983 claims for\\n\\n\\n 26A failure-to-train claim under Monell also requires showing that the failure to train “was closely related to\\nor actually caused [Plaintiffs’] injury,” Ciminillo, 434 F.3d at 469, but Cleveland does not dispute that element.\\n 27Robert H. Jackson, Attorney Gen. of the U.S., Address at the Second Annual Conference of United States\\nAttorneys: The Federal Prosecutor (Apr. 1, 1940).\\n\\f Nos. 17-3840/3843 Jackson, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. Page 54\\n\\n\\nwithholding of exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady, fabrication of evidence, and malicious\\nprosecution; and (4) grant of summary judgment to Cleveland as to the Monell claims.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2083,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4621395,"string":"4,621,395"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Daniel B. NORFLEET, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heather RENNER, Defendant, Judy Farris, in Her Official and Individual Capacity, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Daniel Norfleet v. Heather Renner"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-20"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-6026"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Moore, Murphy, Sutton\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0096p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n DANIEL B. NORFLEET, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. > No. 18-6026\\n │\\n │\\n HEATHER RENNER, │\\n Defendant, │\\n │\\n JUDY FARRIS, in her official and individual capacity, │\\n │\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.\\n No. 3:17-cv-01232—Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: May 2, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 20, 2019\\n\\n Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Robyn Beale Williams, FARRAR & BATES, L.L.P., Nashville, Tennessee, for\\nAppellant. Olin J. Baker, BAKER LAW GROUP, Charlotte, Tennessee, for Appellee.\\nON BRIEF: Robyn Beale Williams, Cassandra M. Crane, FARRAR & BATES, L.L.P.,\\nNashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Olin J. Baker, Neil E. Barnes, BAKER LAW GROUP,\\nCharlotte, Tennessee, for Appellee.\\n\\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Judy Farris is a Tennessee judicial commissioner. She issued a\\nwarrant for Daniel Norfleet’s arrest based on an affidavit from his probation officer saying that\\nhe had violated his probation. Norfleet went to jail for several months. A state court judge\\ndismissed the warrant on the ground that Tennessee commissioners lack authority to issue such\\nwarrants. Norfleet sued Farris under § 1983, alleging that she violated his Fourth Amendment\\nrights by issuing a defective arrest warrant. Farris moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing\\nthat judicial immunity shielded her from the lawsuit. The district court denied the motion. We\\nreverse.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n In January 2015, the Houston County Circuit Court in Tennessee placed Norfleet on\\nsupervised probation for a six-year term. With probation came restrictions, including that\\nNorfleet “not behave in a manner that poses a threat to others or [him]self.” R. 1-2 at 1.\\n\\n Norfleet’s probation officer Heather Renner thought Norfleet violated that condition in\\nSeptember 2016. She prepared an affidavit to that effect and presented it to Farris, the judicial\\ncommissioner for Houston County. Farris issued a warrant for Norfleet’s arrest. Police officers\\narrested Norfleet and took him to the Houston County jail. There he stayed until February 7,\\n2017, when a trial judge from the Houston County Circuit Court dismissed the warrant on the\\nground that the commissioner lacked authority to issue it.\\n\\n Norfleet sued Renner, Farris, the arresting officers, and several municipal defendants,\\nalleging that they violated his Fourth (and Fourteenth) Amendment right to be free from an\\nunreasonable seizure because Farris had no power to issue the probation-revocation arrest\\nwarrant and because the affidavit did not establish probable cause and resulted in a facially\\ndeficient warrant. Farris moved for judgment on the pleadings, claiming judicial immunity. The\\ndistrict court denied the motion, finding that Farris had no authority to issue an arrest warrant for\\n\\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\na probation violation and that Renner’s affidavit clearly failed to establish probable cause to\\nsupport the warrant Farris signed.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Judges generally speaking have broad immunity from being sued. Mireles v. Waco,\\n502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (per curiam); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351–52 (1871).\\nThe immunity is not limited to judges alone. It protects in equal measure officers who perform\\njudicial duties, such as officers who issue arrest warrants. See Foster v. Walsh, 864 F.2d 416,\\n417–18 (6th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Judicial immunity does not extend to everything a judge\\n(or affiliated officer) does. Judges lack immunity for liability arising from non-judicial actions,\\nsay driving to and from work. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11–12. And they lose immunity when they\\nact “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 12; see King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 966\\n(6th Cir. 1985) (applying the same rule to officials in limited-jurisdiction positions).\\n\\n The line between the category of actions that protects Farris (acting in excess of\\njurisdiction) and the category that does not (acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction) is not\\nself-revealing. Two illustrations come to mind. If a judge with general criminal jurisdiction\\nruled that an act amounted to a crime when it did not, he would merely act in excess of\\njurisdiction and thus be immune from a § 1983 lawsuit challenging his decision. Bradley,\\n80 U.S. at 352; see Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357 n.7 (1978). But if a probate judge\\nassumed authority over a criminal case, the judge would act in the clear absence of jurisdiction\\nbecause he is “invested only with authority over wills and the settlement of estates of deceased\\npersons.” Bradley, 80 U.S. at 352; see Stump, 435 U.S. at 357 n.7.\\n\\n These examples still leave plenty of room for debate. Happily for us, the inquiry comes\\nwith a presumption. Keeping in mind that jurisdictional questions can be among “the most\\ndifficult” judges must answer, Bradley, 80 U.S. at 352, and keeping in mind that, without this\\ndeeply rooted immunity, judges might lose the courage of their convictions in construing\\njurisdictional statutes, id. at 346–48, we err on the side of granting immunity in close cases,\\nStump, 435 U.S. at 356.\\n\\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n The question, then, is not whether judges overstep their authority; it is whether they do so\\nclearly. That’s why one could not say that all federal judges, trial or appellate, who have failed\\nto appreciate the emerging line between claim-processing rules and subject matter jurisdiction\\nlimitations, a common mistake over the last two decades, were ineligible for judicial immunity\\nfor their actions. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 510–16 (2006); Gunter v. Bemis\\nCo., 906 F.3d 484, 492–93 (6th Cir. 2018).\\n\\n Two other case examples add a few more contours to the inquiry. In Stump, the U.S.\\nSupreme Court held that a judge on an Indiana court with general jurisdiction was immune from\\nsuit for granting a petition for a young woman to be sterilized. 435 U.S. at 364. Even though\\nstate law provided a sterilization scheme that did not specifically give the judge the power to\\napprove the procedure and even though his decision may have offended fundamental rights, he\\ncould not be sued because no law or case limited his broad authority to consider such petitions.\\nId. at 357–59. In a more recent case, we held that a probate judge was immune from suit for\\ninitiating criminal proceedings against an individual. Brookings v. Clunk, 389 F.3d 614, 623 (6th\\nCir. 2004). The judge had authority to issue marriage licenses. And the man lied on his license\\napplication, a crime. In view of the judge’s duty to “report potentially obstructive conduct,” we\\nsaid that the judge at worst acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he filed the criminal\\ncomplaint rather than writing a letter to the prosecutor. Id.\\n\\n That wind up leaves us with two questions to answer: Did Farris perform a judicial act?\\nIf so, did she clearly lack authority to perform that act?\\n\\n Farris clears the first immunity hurdle. Issuing an arrest warrant is a judicial act. See\\nFoster, 864 F.2d at 417–18. The district court and the parties (and we) agree.\\n\\n She clears the second one too. Nothing clearly deprived Farris of subject matter\\njurisdiction to issue Norfleet’s probation-revocation warrant.\\n\\n Tennessee statutes describe the authority of judicial commissioners and the process for\\nrevoking parole. Begin with commissioners. The legislatures in counties with certain\\npopulations, including Houston County, may appoint judicial commissioners. Tenn. Code Ann.\\n§ 40-1-111(a). Commissioners’ duties “include,” but are “not . . . limited to,” issuing search\\n\\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nwarrants and felony arrest warrants, appointing attorneys for indigent defendants, and issuing\\ninjunctions in domestic violence cases. Id. § 40-1-111(a)(1)(A). In addition to that non-\\nexhaustive list, the state code gives commissioners power to perform tasks assigned to\\nmagistrates, id. § 40-1-106, such as issuing arrest warrants for anyone charged with a “public\\noffense[],” id. § 40-6-202.\\n\\n Tennessee law also addresses probation. It gives a “trial judge” authority to include a\\nperiod of probation in the sentence, id. § 40-35-303, and “to revoke and annul” probation, id.\\n§ 40-35-310(a). The first step in the revocation process, the one at issue here, is to take the\\nprobationer back into custody. “[T]he trial judge,” the statute says, “shall have the power to\\ncause to be issued under the trial judge’s hand a warrant for the arrest of the defendant as in any\\nother criminal case,” when he becomes aware that the probationer has violated state law or a\\ncondition of probation. Id. § 40-35-311(a).\\n\\n These statutes do not clearly remove a commissioner’s power to issue a probation-\\nrevocation arrest warrant. The first statute, the one laying out a judicial commissioner’s powers\\nand duties, is not exhaustive. Id. § 40-1-111(a)(1)(A). And elsewhere Tennessee law generally\\ngives the commissioner authority to issue arrest warrants for criminal offenses. Id. § 40-6-202.\\n\\n The second statute, the one describing a trial judge’s powers, is not exclusive with respect\\nto probation. It does not say that only trial judges may issue probation-revocation arrest\\nwarrants. That provision also could reasonably be read to treat revocation warrants like warrants\\nin “any other criminal case.” Id. § 40-35-311(a). All in all, a broad warrant-issuing authority\\nwith an open-ended list of duties combined with a non-exclusive revocation-warrant provision\\nmeans the statutory scheme doesn’t plainly deprive Farris of jurisdiction. That makes her\\neligible for judicial immunity.\\n\\n Hoping to fend off that conclusion, Norfleet places most of his chips on the limited nature\\nof a judicial commissioner’s authority. See State v. Bush, 626 S.W.2d 470, 473 (Tenn. Crim.\\nApp. 1981); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1-111(a)(1)(A). To have immunity as a limited-\\njurisdiction judicial commissioner, he explains, a statute must specifically grant Farris the\\nauthority she exercised. But we rejected that argument long ago, holding that the same rule\\n\\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\napplies to all officials, whether in positions of general or limited jurisdiction. To be liable, the\\nofficial must “act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” either way. King, 766 F.2d at 966.\\n\\n Even under King, Norfleet points out, the probation-revocation statute still counts as a\\nclear limit on a commissioner’s power because it mentions only trial judges. But, as just shown,\\neach of the pertinent grants of power is not exclusive or exhaustive. Between her non-exhaustive\\nduties, her general criminal arrest warrant authority, and the probation statute’s analogy to\\ngeneral criminal cases, there is a non-trivial argument that Farris had jurisdiction. So she acted\\nat most in excess of jurisdiction but not obviously without it.\\n\\n No case to our knowledge definitively answers the question one way or the other. The\\nTennessee Supreme Court, best we can tell, hasn’t commented on a commissioner’s authority to\\nissue probation-violation arrest warrants. While the intermediate Tennessee courts have\\ndiscussed probation revocation more generally, they have not dealt with magistrates or\\ncommissioners who issued probation-revocation arrest warrants. The language in two opinions,\\none of them unpublished and the other written before Tennessee enacted the judicial\\ncommissioner statute, may suggest the power to issue probation warrants applies only to trial\\njudges. See Jackson v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, No. M2009-01970-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL\\n2287639, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2010); Practy v. State, 525 S.W.2d 677, 681 (Tenn.\\nCrim. App. 1974). But in neither case did that language amount to a holding. One of them\\ninvolved a probation officer’s alleged negligence for failing to retract a probation-revocation\\nwarrant where the probationer cured his violation prior to being arrested. Jackson, 2010 WL\\n2287639, at *1. The other involved a probationer’s argument that he did not receive a hearing\\nprior to having his probation revoked in violation of due process. Practy, 525 S.W.2d at 679–82.\\n\\n Norfleet adds that a Tennessee Attorney General opinion supports his position. True\\nenough, the opinion advises that magistrates may not issue probation-revocation arrest warrants\\nand says that trial judges have that authority. Op. Tenn. Att’y Gen. 04-054 (2004). But the\\nopinion is not binding in Tennessee. State courts remain the authoritative interpreters of state\\nlaw. State v. Frazier, 558 S.W.3d 145, 154 (Tenn. 2018) (disagreeing with two federal district\\ncourts and a Tennessee Attorney General opinion in construing state law). The reality that\\nsomeone asked for an opinion from the Attorney General about the point, moreover, suggests\\n\\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nthat the statutory text does not definitively answer the question. Even if we or the Tennessee\\ncourts might not ultimately adopt her view of the law (we need not decide today), Farris didn’t\\nclearly lack jurisdiction to issue the warrant. She is entitled to absolute immunity.\\n\\n For these reasons, we reverse and remand the case to the district court to enter judgment\\nfor Farris.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4398648/\", \"author_raw\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MOORE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MURPHY"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SUTTON"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621395/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Daniel B. NORFLEET, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heather RENNER, Defendant, Judy Farris, in Her Official and Individual Capacity, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-20\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0096p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n DANIEL B. NORFLEET, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n │\n v. > No. 18-6026\n │\n │\n HEATHER RENNER, │\n Defendant, │\n │\n JUDY FARRIS, in her official and individual capacity, │\n │\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.\n No. 3:17-cv-01232—Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., District Judge.\n\n Argued: May 2, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 20, 2019\n\n Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Robyn Beale Williams, FARRAR & BATES, L.L.P., Nashville, Tennessee, for\nAppellant. Olin J. Baker, BAKER LAW GROUP, Charlotte, Tennessee, for Appellee.\nON BRIEF: Robyn Beale Williams, Cassandra M. Crane, FARRAR & BATES, L.L.P.,\nNashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Olin J. Baker, Neil E. Barnes, BAKER LAW GROUP,\nCharlotte, Tennessee, for Appellee.\n\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 2\n\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Judy Farris is a Tennessee judicial commissioner. She issued a\nwarrant for Daniel Norfleet’s arrest based on an affidavit from his probation officer saying that\nhe had violated his probation. Norfleet went to jail for several months. A state court judge\ndismissed the warrant on the ground that Tennessee commissioners lack authority to issue such\nwarrants. Norfleet sued Farris under § 1983, alleging that she violated his Fourth Amendment\nrights by issuing a defective arrest warrant. Farris moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing\nthat judicial immunity shielded her from the lawsuit. The district court denied the motion. We\nreverse.\n\n I.\n\n In January 2015, the Houston County Circuit Court in Tennessee placed Norfleet on\nsupervised probation for a six-year term. With probation came restrictions, including that\nNorfleet “not behave in a manner that poses a threat to others or [him]self.” R. 1-2 at 1.\n\n Norfleet’s probation officer Heather Renner thought Norfleet violated that condition in\nSeptember 2016. She prepared an affidavit to that effect and presented it to Farris, the judicial\ncommissioner for Houston County. Farris issued a warrant for Norfleet’s arrest. Police officers\narrested Norfleet and took him to the Houston County jail. There he stayed until February 7,\n2017, when a trial judge from the Houston County Circuit Court dismissed the warrant on the\nground that the commissioner lacked authority to issue it.\n\n Norfleet sued Renner, Farris, the arresting officers, and several municipal defendants,\nalleging that they violated his Fourth (and Fourteenth) Amendment right to be free from an\nunreasonable seizure because Farris had no power to issue the probation-revocation arrest\nwarrant and because the affidavit did not establish probable cause and resulted in a facially\ndeficient warrant. Farris moved for judgment on the pleadings, claiming judicial immunity. The\ndistrict court denied the motion, finding that Farris had no authority to issue an arrest warrant for\n\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 3\n\n\na probation violation and that Renner’s affidavit clearly failed to establish probable cause to\nsupport the warrant Farris signed.\n\n II.\n\n Judges generally speaking have broad immunity from being sued. Mireles v. Waco,\n502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (per curiam); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351–52 (1871).\nThe immunity is not limited to judges alone. It protects in equal measure officers who perform\njudicial duties, such as officers who issue arrest warrants. See Foster v. Walsh, 864 F.2d 416,\n417–18 (6th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Judicial immunity does not extend to everything a judge\n(or affiliated officer) does. Judges lack immunity for liability arising from non-judicial actions,\nsay driving to and from work. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11–12. And they lose immunity when they\nact “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 12; see King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 966\n(6th Cir. 1985) (applying the same rule to officials in limited-jurisdiction positions).\n\n The line between the category of actions that protects Farris (acting in excess of\njurisdiction) and the category that does not (acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction) is not\nself-revealing. Two illustrations come to mind. If a judge with general criminal jurisdiction\nruled that an act amounted to a crime when it did not, he would merely act in excess of\njurisdiction and thus be immune from a § 1983 lawsuit challenging his decision. Bradley,\n80 U.S. at 352; see Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357 n.7 (1978). But if a probate judge\nassumed authority over a criminal case, the judge would act in the clear absence of jurisdiction\nbecause he is “invested only with authority over wills and the settlement of estates of deceased\npersons.” Bradley, 80 U.S. at 352; see Stump, 435 U.S. at 357 n.7.\n\n These examples still leave plenty of room for debate. Happily for us, the inquiry comes\nwith a presumption. Keeping in mind that jurisdictional questions can be among “the most\ndifficult” judges must answer, Bradley, 80 U.S. at 352, and keeping in mind that, without this\ndeeply rooted immunity, judges might lose the courage of their convictions in construing\njurisdictional statutes, id. at 346–48, we err on the side of granting immunity in close cases,\nStump, 435 U.S. at 356.\n\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 4\n\n\n The question, then, is not whether judges overstep their authority; it is whether they do so\nclearly. That’s why one could not say that all federal judges, trial or appellate, who have failed\nto appreciate the emerging line between claim-processing rules and subject matter jurisdiction\nlimitations, a common mistake over the last two decades, were ineligible for judicial immunity\nfor their actions. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 510–16 (2006); Gunter v. Bemis\nCo., 906 F.3d 484, 492–93 (6th Cir. 2018).\n\n Two other case examples add a few more contours to the inquiry. In Stump, the U.S.\nSupreme Court held that a judge on an Indiana court with general jurisdiction was immune from\nsuit for granting a petition for a young woman to be sterilized. 435 U.S. at 364. Even though\nstate law provided a sterilization scheme that did not specifically give the judge the power to\napprove the procedure and even though his decision may have offended fundamental rights, he\ncould not be sued because no law or case limited his broad authority to consider such petitions.\nId. at 357–59. In a more recent case, we held that a probate judge was immune from suit for\ninitiating criminal proceedings against an individual. Brookings v. Clunk, 389 F.3d 614, 623 (6th\nCir. 2004). The judge had authority to issue marriage licenses. And the man lied on his license\napplication, a crime. In view of the judge’s duty to “report potentially obstructive conduct,” we\nsaid that the judge at worst acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he filed the criminal\ncomplaint rather than writing a letter to the prosecutor. Id.\n\n That wind up leaves us with two questions to answer: Did Farris perform a judicial act?\nIf so, did she clearly lack authority to perform that act?\n\n Farris clears the first immunity hurdle. Issuing an arrest warrant is a judicial act. See\nFoster, 864 F.2d at 417–18. The district court and the parties (and we) agree.\n\n She clears the second one too. Nothing clearly deprived Farris of subject matter\njurisdiction to issue Norfleet’s probation-revocation warrant.\n\n Tennessee statutes describe the authority of judicial commissioners and the process for\nrevoking parole. Begin with commissioners. The legislatures in counties with certain\npopulations, including Houston County, may appoint judicial commissioners. Tenn. Code Ann.\n§ 40-1-111(a). Commissioners’ duties “include,” but are “not . . . limited to,” issuing search\n\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 5\n\n\nwarrants and felony arrest warrants, appointing attorneys for indigent defendants, and issuing\ninjunctions in domestic violence cases. Id. § 40-1-111(a)(1)(A). In addition to that non-\nexhaustive list, the state code gives commissioners power to perform tasks assigned to\nmagistrates, id. § 40-1-106, such as issuing arrest warrants for anyone charged with a “public\noffense[],” id. § 40-6-202.\n\n Tennessee law also addresses probation. It gives a “trial judge” authority to include a\nperiod of probation in the sentence, id. § 40-35-303, and “to revoke and annul” probation, id.\n§ 40-35-310(a). The first step in the revocation process, the one at issue here, is to take the\nprobationer back into custody. “[T]he trial judge,” the statute says, “shall have the power to\ncause to be issued under the trial judge’s hand a warrant for the arrest of the defendant as in any\nother criminal case,” when he becomes aware that the probationer has violated state law or a\ncondition of probation. Id. § 40-35-311(a).\n\n These statutes do not clearly remove a commissioner’s power to issue a probation-\nrevocation arrest warrant. The first statute, the one laying out a judicial commissioner’s powers\nand duties, is not exhaustive. Id. § 40-1-111(a)(1)(A). And elsewhere Tennessee law generally\ngives the commissioner authority to issue arrest warrants for criminal offenses. Id. § 40-6-202.\n\n The second statute, the one describing a trial judge’s powers, is not exclusive with respect\nto probation. It does not say that only trial judges may issue probation-revocation arrest\nwarrants. That provision also could reasonably be read to treat revocation warrants like warrants\nin “any other criminal case.” Id. § 40-35-311(a). All in all, a broad warrant-issuing authority\nwith an open-ended list of duties combined with a non-exclusive revocation-warrant provision\nmeans the statutory scheme doesn’t plainly deprive Farris of jurisdiction. That makes her\neligible for judicial immunity.\n\n Hoping to fend off that conclusion, Norfleet places most of his chips on the limited nature\nof a judicial commissioner’s authority. See State v. Bush, 626 S.W.2d 470, 473 (Tenn. Crim.\nApp. 1981); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1-111(a)(1)(A). To have immunity as a limited-\njurisdiction judicial commissioner, he explains, a statute must specifically grant Farris the\nauthority she exercised. But we rejected that argument long ago, holding that the same rule\n\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 6\n\n\napplies to all officials, whether in positions of general or limited jurisdiction. To be liable, the\nofficial must “act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” either way. King, 766 F.2d at 966.\n\n Even under King, Norfleet points out, the probation-revocation statute still counts as a\nclear limit on a commissioner’s power because it mentions only trial judges. But, as just shown,\neach of the pertinent grants of power is not exclusive or exhaustive. Between her non-exhaustive\nduties, her general criminal arrest warrant authority, and the probation statute’s analogy to\ngeneral criminal cases, there is a non-trivial argument that Farris had jurisdiction. So she acted\nat most in excess of jurisdiction but not obviously without it.\n\n No case to our knowledge definitively answers the question one way or the other. The\nTennessee Supreme Court, best we can tell, hasn’t commented on a commissioner’s authority to\nissue probation-violation arrest warrants. While the intermediate Tennessee courts have\ndiscussed probation revocation more generally, they have not dealt with magistrates or\ncommissioners who issued probation-revocation arrest warrants. The language in two opinions,\none of them unpublished and the other written before Tennessee enacted the judicial\ncommissioner statute, may suggest the power to issue probation warrants applies only to trial\njudges. See Jackson v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, No. M2009-01970-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL\n2287639, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2010); Practy v. State, 525 S.W.2d 677, 681 (Tenn.\nCrim. App. 1974). But in neither case did that language amount to a holding. One of them\ninvolved a probation officer’s alleged negligence for failing to retract a probation-revocation\nwarrant where the probationer cured his violation prior to being arrested. Jackson, 2010 WL\n2287639, at *1. The other involved a probationer’s argument that he did not receive a hearing\nprior to having his probation revoked in violation of due process. Practy, 525 S.W.2d at 679–82.\n\n Norfleet adds that a Tennessee Attorney General opinion supports his position. True\nenough, the opinion advises that magistrates may not issue probation-revocation arrest warrants\nand says that trial judges have that authority. Op. Tenn. Att’y Gen. 04-054 (2004). But the\nopinion is not binding in Tennessee. State courts remain the authoritative interpreters of state\nlaw. State v. Frazier, 558 S.W.3d 145, 154 (Tenn. 2018) (disagreeing with two federal district\ncourts and a Tennessee Attorney General opinion in construing state law). The reality that\nsomeone asked for an opinion from the Attorney General about the point, moreover, suggests\n\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 7\n\n\nthat the statutory text does not definitively answer the question. Even if we or the Tennessee\ncourts might not ultimately adopt her view of the law (we need not decide today), Farris didn’t\nclearly lack jurisdiction to issue the warrant. She is entitled to absolute immunity.\n\n For these reasons, we reverse and remand the case to the district court to enter judgment\nfor Farris.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Daniel B. NORFLEET, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heather RENNER, Defendant, Judy Farris, in Her Official and Individual Capacity, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-20\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0096p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n DANIEL B. NORFLEET, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. > No. 18-6026\\n │\\n │\\n HEATHER RENNER, │\\n Defendant, │\\n │\\n JUDY FARRIS, in her official and individual capacity, │\\n │\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.\\n No. 3:17-cv-01232—Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: May 2, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 20, 2019\\n\\n Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Robyn Beale Williams, FARRAR & BATES, L.L.P., Nashville, Tennessee, for\\nAppellant. Olin J. Baker, BAKER LAW GROUP, Charlotte, Tennessee, for Appellee.\\nON BRIEF: Robyn Beale Williams, Cassandra M. Crane, FARRAR & BATES, L.L.P.,\\nNashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Olin J. Baker, Neil E. Barnes, BAKER LAW GROUP,\\nCharlotte, Tennessee, for Appellee.\\n\\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Judy Farris is a Tennessee judicial commissioner. She issued a\\nwarrant for Daniel Norfleet’s arrest based on an affidavit from his probation officer saying that\\nhe had violated his probation. Norfleet went to jail for several months. A state court judge\\ndismissed the warrant on the ground that Tennessee commissioners lack authority to issue such\\nwarrants. Norfleet sued Farris under § 1983, alleging that she violated his Fourth Amendment\\nrights by issuing a defective arrest warrant. Farris moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing\\nthat judicial immunity shielded her from the lawsuit. The district court denied the motion. We\\nreverse.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n In January 2015, the Houston County Circuit Court in Tennessee placed Norfleet on\\nsupervised probation for a six-year term. With probation came restrictions, including that\\nNorfleet “not behave in a manner that poses a threat to others or [him]self.” R. 1-2 at 1.\\n\\n Norfleet’s probation officer Heather Renner thought Norfleet violated that condition in\\nSeptember 2016. She prepared an affidavit to that effect and presented it to Farris, the judicial\\ncommissioner for Houston County. Farris issued a warrant for Norfleet’s arrest. Police officers\\narrested Norfleet and took him to the Houston County jail. There he stayed until February 7,\\n2017, when a trial judge from the Houston County Circuit Court dismissed the warrant on the\\nground that the commissioner lacked authority to issue it.\\n\\n Norfleet sued Renner, Farris, the arresting officers, and several municipal defendants,\\nalleging that they violated his Fourth (and Fourteenth) Amendment right to be free from an\\nunreasonable seizure because Farris had no power to issue the probation-revocation arrest\\nwarrant and because the affidavit did not establish probable cause and resulted in a facially\\ndeficient warrant. Farris moved for judgment on the pleadings, claiming judicial immunity. The\\ndistrict court denied the motion, finding that Farris had no authority to issue an arrest warrant for\\n\\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\na probation violation and that Renner’s affidavit clearly failed to establish probable cause to\\nsupport the warrant Farris signed.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Judges generally speaking have broad immunity from being sued. Mireles v. Waco,\\n502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (per curiam); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351–52 (1871).\\nThe immunity is not limited to judges alone. It protects in equal measure officers who perform\\njudicial duties, such as officers who issue arrest warrants. See Foster v. Walsh, 864 F.2d 416,\\n417–18 (6th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Judicial immunity does not extend to everything a judge\\n(or affiliated officer) does. Judges lack immunity for liability arising from non-judicial actions,\\nsay driving to and from work. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11–12. And they lose immunity when they\\nact “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 12; see King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 966\\n(6th Cir. 1985) (applying the same rule to officials in limited-jurisdiction positions).\\n\\n The line between the category of actions that protects Farris (acting in excess of\\njurisdiction) and the category that does not (acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction) is not\\nself-revealing. Two illustrations come to mind. If a judge with general criminal jurisdiction\\nruled that an act amounted to a crime when it did not, he would merely act in excess of\\njurisdiction and thus be immune from a § 1983 lawsuit challenging his decision. Bradley,\\n80 U.S. at 352; see Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357 n.7 (1978). But if a probate judge\\nassumed authority over a criminal case, the judge would act in the clear absence of jurisdiction\\nbecause he is “invested only with authority over wills and the settlement of estates of deceased\\npersons.” Bradley, 80 U.S. at 352; see Stump, 435 U.S. at 357 n.7.\\n\\n These examples still leave plenty of room for debate. Happily for us, the inquiry comes\\nwith a presumption. Keeping in mind that jurisdictional questions can be among “the most\\ndifficult” judges must answer, Bradley, 80 U.S. at 352, and keeping in mind that, without this\\ndeeply rooted immunity, judges might lose the courage of their convictions in construing\\njurisdictional statutes, id. at 346–48, we err on the side of granting immunity in close cases,\\nStump, 435 U.S. at 356.\\n\\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n The question, then, is not whether judges overstep their authority; it is whether they do so\\nclearly. That’s why one could not say that all federal judges, trial or appellate, who have failed\\nto appreciate the emerging line between claim-processing rules and subject matter jurisdiction\\nlimitations, a common mistake over the last two decades, were ineligible for judicial immunity\\nfor their actions. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 510–16 (2006); Gunter v. Bemis\\nCo., 906 F.3d 484, 492–93 (6th Cir. 2018).\\n\\n Two other case examples add a few more contours to the inquiry. In Stump, the U.S.\\nSupreme Court held that a judge on an Indiana court with general jurisdiction was immune from\\nsuit for granting a petition for a young woman to be sterilized. 435 U.S. at 364. Even though\\nstate law provided a sterilization scheme that did not specifically give the judge the power to\\napprove the procedure and even though his decision may have offended fundamental rights, he\\ncould not be sued because no law or case limited his broad authority to consider such petitions.\\nId. at 357–59. In a more recent case, we held that a probate judge was immune from suit for\\ninitiating criminal proceedings against an individual. Brookings v. Clunk, 389 F.3d 614, 623 (6th\\nCir. 2004). The judge had authority to issue marriage licenses. And the man lied on his license\\napplication, a crime. In view of the judge’s duty to “report potentially obstructive conduct,” we\\nsaid that the judge at worst acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he filed the criminal\\ncomplaint rather than writing a letter to the prosecutor. Id.\\n\\n That wind up leaves us with two questions to answer: Did Farris perform a judicial act?\\nIf so, did she clearly lack authority to perform that act?\\n\\n Farris clears the first immunity hurdle. Issuing an arrest warrant is a judicial act. See\\nFoster, 864 F.2d at 417–18. The district court and the parties (and we) agree.\\n\\n She clears the second one too. Nothing clearly deprived Farris of subject matter\\njurisdiction to issue Norfleet’s probation-revocation warrant.\\n\\n Tennessee statutes describe the authority of judicial commissioners and the process for\\nrevoking parole. Begin with commissioners. The legislatures in counties with certain\\npopulations, including Houston County, may appoint judicial commissioners. Tenn. Code Ann.\\n§ 40-1-111(a). Commissioners’ duties “include,” but are “not . . . limited to,” issuing search\\n\\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nwarrants and felony arrest warrants, appointing attorneys for indigent defendants, and issuing\\ninjunctions in domestic violence cases. Id. § 40-1-111(a)(1)(A). In addition to that non-\\nexhaustive list, the state code gives commissioners power to perform tasks assigned to\\nmagistrates, id. § 40-1-106, such as issuing arrest warrants for anyone charged with a “public\\noffense[],” id. § 40-6-202.\\n\\n Tennessee law also addresses probation. It gives a “trial judge” authority to include a\\nperiod of probation in the sentence, id. § 40-35-303, and “to revoke and annul” probation, id.\\n§ 40-35-310(a). The first step in the revocation process, the one at issue here, is to take the\\nprobationer back into custody. “[T]he trial judge,” the statute says, “shall have the power to\\ncause to be issued under the trial judge’s hand a warrant for the arrest of the defendant as in any\\nother criminal case,” when he becomes aware that the probationer has violated state law or a\\ncondition of probation. Id. § 40-35-311(a).\\n\\n These statutes do not clearly remove a commissioner’s power to issue a probation-\\nrevocation arrest warrant. The first statute, the one laying out a judicial commissioner’s powers\\nand duties, is not exhaustive. Id. § 40-1-111(a)(1)(A). And elsewhere Tennessee law generally\\ngives the commissioner authority to issue arrest warrants for criminal offenses. Id. § 40-6-202.\\n\\n The second statute, the one describing a trial judge’s powers, is not exclusive with respect\\nto probation. It does not say that only trial judges may issue probation-revocation arrest\\nwarrants. That provision also could reasonably be read to treat revocation warrants like warrants\\nin “any other criminal case.” Id. § 40-35-311(a). All in all, a broad warrant-issuing authority\\nwith an open-ended list of duties combined with a non-exclusive revocation-warrant provision\\nmeans the statutory scheme doesn’t plainly deprive Farris of jurisdiction. That makes her\\neligible for judicial immunity.\\n\\n Hoping to fend off that conclusion, Norfleet places most of his chips on the limited nature\\nof a judicial commissioner’s authority. See State v. Bush, 626 S.W.2d 470, 473 (Tenn. Crim.\\nApp. 1981); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1-111(a)(1)(A). To have immunity as a limited-\\njurisdiction judicial commissioner, he explains, a statute must specifically grant Farris the\\nauthority she exercised. But we rejected that argument long ago, holding that the same rule\\n\\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\napplies to all officials, whether in positions of general or limited jurisdiction. To be liable, the\\nofficial must “act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” either way. King, 766 F.2d at 966.\\n\\n Even under King, Norfleet points out, the probation-revocation statute still counts as a\\nclear limit on a commissioner’s power because it mentions only trial judges. But, as just shown,\\neach of the pertinent grants of power is not exclusive or exhaustive. Between her non-exhaustive\\nduties, her general criminal arrest warrant authority, and the probation statute’s analogy to\\ngeneral criminal cases, there is a non-trivial argument that Farris had jurisdiction. So she acted\\nat most in excess of jurisdiction but not obviously without it.\\n\\n No case to our knowledge definitively answers the question one way or the other. The\\nTennessee Supreme Court, best we can tell, hasn’t commented on a commissioner’s authority to\\nissue probation-violation arrest warrants. While the intermediate Tennessee courts have\\ndiscussed probation revocation more generally, they have not dealt with magistrates or\\ncommissioners who issued probation-revocation arrest warrants. The language in two opinions,\\none of them unpublished and the other written before Tennessee enacted the judicial\\ncommissioner statute, may suggest the power to issue probation warrants applies only to trial\\njudges. See Jackson v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, No. M2009-01970-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL\\n2287639, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2010); Practy v. State, 525 S.W.2d 677, 681 (Tenn.\\nCrim. App. 1974). But in neither case did that language amount to a holding. One of them\\ninvolved a probation officer’s alleged negligence for failing to retract a probation-revocation\\nwarrant where the probationer cured his violation prior to being arrested. Jackson, 2010 WL\\n2287639, at *1. The other involved a probationer’s argument that he did not receive a hearing\\nprior to having his probation revoked in violation of due process. Practy, 525 S.W.2d at 679–82.\\n\\n Norfleet adds that a Tennessee Attorney General opinion supports his position. True\\nenough, the opinion advises that magistrates may not issue probation-revocation arrest warrants\\nand says that trial judges have that authority. Op. Tenn. Att’y Gen. 04-054 (2004). But the\\nopinion is not binding in Tennessee. State courts remain the authoritative interpreters of state\\nlaw. State v. Frazier, 558 S.W.3d 145, 154 (Tenn. 2018) (disagreeing with two federal district\\ncourts and a Tennessee Attorney General opinion in construing state law). The reality that\\nsomeone asked for an opinion from the Attorney General about the point, moreover, suggests\\n\\f No. 18-6026 Norfleet v. Renner et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nthat the statutory text does not definitively answer the question. Even if we or the Tennessee\\ncourts might not ultimately adopt her view of the law (we need not decide today), Farris didn’t\\nclearly lack jurisdiction to issue the warrant. She is entitled to absolute immunity.\\n\\n For these reasons, we reverse and remand the case to the district court to enter judgment\\nfor Farris.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2084,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4621739,"string":"4,621,739"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Roy WANDAHSEGA, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Patrick Wandahsega"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-21"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1219"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Clay, Gilman, Kethledge\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0097p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │ No. 18-1219\\n >\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n PATRICK ROY WANDAHSEGA, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.\\n No. 2:16-cr-00020-1—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: May 1, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 21, 2019\\n\\n Before: CLAY, GILMAN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Clare E. Freeman, THE FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP, P.L.L.C., La Porte, Texas,\\nfor Appellant. Austin J. Hakes, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids,\\nMichigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Clare E. Freeman, THE FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP,\\nP.L.L.C., La Porte, Texas, for Appellant. Hannah N. Bobee, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\\nOFFICE, Marquette, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Patrick Roy Wandahsega was convicted by a\\njury of abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5), after Wandahsega’s\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 2\\n\\n\\nthen-six-year-old son, H.D.W., told his grandmother and several others that Wandahsega had\\ntouched him inappropriately. On appeal, Wandahsega argues that the district court erred in\\nallowing H.D.W. to testify by closed-circuit television (CCTV). He also challenges several of\\nthe district court’s evidentiary rulings at trial, the court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial, and\\nthe court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the alleged insufficiency of\\nthe evidence. Finally, Wandahsega contends that his sentence is both procedurally and\\nsubstantively unreasonable. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM all aspects of the\\ndistrict court’s judgment.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\nA. Factual background\\n\\n At the time of the events in question, Wandahsega and H.D.W., who are both Native\\nAmericans, lived on the Hannahville Reservation in Michigan. After his mother’s death, H.D.W.\\nbegan splitting his time between his maternal grandparents’ home and Wandahsega’s apartment.\\nWandahsega struggles with substance abuse, having participated in institutional substance-abuse\\ntreatment programs on at least four occasions. While Wandahsega participated in treatment,\\nH.D.W. stayed with his maternal grandparents.\\n\\n In December 2015, two days after H.D.W. returned to his father’s care after Wandahsega\\nhad completed a period of substance-abuse treatment, H.D.W. allegedly told his maternal\\ngrandmother, Elizabeth Gudwer, that he and Wandahsega “did PK . . . a couple of nights ago.”\\nWhen Gudwer asked H.D.W. what he meant by “PK,” H.D.W. looked down, pointed to his groin\\narea, and said, “just like dad and his girlfriend do.” Gudwer then called Hannahville Child\\nProtective Services (CPS), where a worker told her to contact law enforcement. Law\\nenforcement in turn told her to take H.D.W. to CPS. A CPS worker at the Hannahville Tribal\\nCouncil, Betsy Ruleau, conducted a forensic interview during which H.D.W. did not disclose any\\nabuse.\\n\\n After H.D.W.’s interview with Ruleau, he returned to his father’s care. That evening,\\nTonya Maycroft, the mother of Wandahsega’s other children, visited Wandahsega’s home to ask\\nH.D.W. if he wanted to decorate a Christmas tree with his half-siblings. H.D.W. ran up to\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 3\\n\\n\\nMaycroft and told her that his father was doing “inappropriate” and “bad things” to him. At that\\npoint, Maycroft did not know that H.D.W. had alerted Gudwer to similar behavior. Maycroft\\nbrought H.D.W. to her home, asked him additional questions, called law enforcement, and spoke\\nto Gudwer. She then took H.D.W. to the emergency room of the local hospital, where they were\\nmet by a police officer.\\n\\n At the hospital, H.D.W. told Nurse Stacy Smith that his dad “did something bad” to him\\ntwice. He also told Dr. Alex Judy that his dad had touched his penis and put a finger up his\\nrectum several days prior to his hospital visit. H.D.W. said that this had happened on two\\nseparate occasions. As for physical injuries, H.D.W. said that the alleged assault had hurt a little,\\nbut that it did not cause bleeding and that he was not currently in pain. Dr. Judy asked H.D.W. if\\nhe could examine H.D.W.’s anus and genital area, but H.D.W. refused. Because H.D.W. said\\nthat he was not currently in pain, Dr. Judy did not press him any further. Dr. Judy then ordered\\nurine testing to rule out the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).\\n\\n The day after H.D.W.’s hospital visit, Ruleau conducted a second forensic interview,\\nduring which H.D.W. disclosed that Wandahsega had sexually abused him. H.D.W.’s disclosure\\nwas consistent with what he had told Gudwer and Maycroft. That same day, FBI Special Agent\\nJohn Fortunato and a local detective, Justin Hansen, went to Wandahsega’s apartment to\\ninterview him, but they ended the interview early because Wandahsega appeared to be under the\\ninfluence of drugs or alcohol. They returned the next day and conducted a recorded interview\\nwith Wandahsega. He denied touching his son, but also said that he sometimes blacks out from\\ndrinking and therefore did not know what, if anything, he might have done to H.D.W.\\n\\n Wandahsega consented to a search of his apartment and to the seizure of bed sheets, three\\npairs of H.D.W.’s underwear, and a blanket from Wandahsega’s bedroom, where H.D.W. usually\\nslept. He also consented to providing a DNA sample by cheek swab. The Michigan State Police\\nForensic Laboratory subsequently found saliva on the inside rear portion of a pair of H.D.W.’s\\nunderwear, and testing established that the saliva contained a mixture of both H.D.W.’s and\\nWandahsega’s DNA.\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 4\\n\\n\\nB. Procedural background\\n\\n A federal grand jury proceeded to indict Wandahsega. He was charged with aggravated\\nabuse of a child under twelve-years old, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c), and with abusive\\nsexual contact with a child under twelve-years old, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5).\\n\\n 1. Pretrial motions\\n\\n Prior to trial, the government filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(b)(1) to let H.D.W.\\ntestify through CCTV. A magistrate judge held a hearing and heard testimony from a social\\nworker about whether H.D.W. would be able to testify in front of his father. H.D.W. also\\ntestified at the hearing and said that he would be scared to testify with Wandahsega present.\\nAfter the hearing, the magistrate judge concluded (1) that H.D.W. would be unable to testify in\\nfront of his father because of fear, and (2) that there was a substantial likelihood that H.D.W.\\nwould suffer emotional trauma if forced to do so. Accordingly, the magistrate judge\\nrecommended granting the government’s motion and allowing H.D.W. to testify at trial via two-\\nway CCTV. Wandahsega did not object to the Report and Recommendation, which the district\\ncourt adopted.\\n\\n The government filed two additional motions in limine. First, it filed a motion for the\\nadmission of H.D.W.’s statements to Nurse Smith and Dr. Judy at the emergency room. The\\ngovernment based its request on Rule 803(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides\\nan exception to the rule against hearsay for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment.\\nSecond, it filed a motion for the admission of H.D.W.’s statements to Gudwer and Maycroft\\nunder Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the residual hearsay exception. That motion\\nalso sought the admission of a video recording of Ruleau’s second interview with H.D.W.\\nWandahsega opposed both motions. The magistrate judge ultimately recommended that the\\nevidentiary issues be dealt with at trial after H.D.W.’s testimony and after the initial testimony of\\nNurse Smith and Dr. Judy. After review, the district court adopted the Report and\\nRecommendation.\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 5\\n\\n\\n 2. The trial\\n\\n As its first witness, the government called H.D.W. H.D.W. was questioned in a room\\nseparate from the jury and Wandahsega, and his testimony was transmitted to the jury by CCTV.\\nHe testified that he no longer lives with his father because Wandahsega “did something bad to\\n[him]” while he was “in [his] bedroom” in Wandahsega’s apartment. H.D.W. said that\\nWandahsega touched H.D.W.’s privates—where he “poop[s] and pee[s]”—more than one time\\nand that H.D.W. was telling the truth when he spoke to Nurse Smith, Dr. Judy, and Ruleau.\\nFinally, H.D.W. testified that he preferred living with his grandparents to living with his father,\\nand that he was upset with his father for drinking.\\n\\n The district court then addressed several outstanding evidentiary issues outside the\\npresence of the jury, including the motions in limine that the magistrate judge had not resolved.\\nFirst, the court addressed the admission of H.D.W.’s hearsay statements to Gudwer about his\\nfather doing “PK” with him like his father and his father’s girlfriend did. Applying the four-part\\ntest delineated by Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court found that H.D.W.’s\\nstatements to Gudwer were admissible because they were spontaneous and therefore reliable.\\nGudwer then testified about her exchange with H.D.W. and what she did in response.\\n\\n The district court next addressed the admission of H.D.W.’s hearsay statements to\\nMaycroft when she picked him up from Wandahsega’s apartment to decorate a Christmas tree.\\nBecause H.D.W.’s initial statement to Maycroft that his father was doing bad things to him was\\nspontaneous, the court found it to be reliable and therefore admissible under Rule 807. But the\\ncourt found that H.D.W.’s responses to Maycroft’s follow-up questions were inadmissible\\nhearsay that did not fall under Rule 807’s exception. Maycroft’s testimony was therefore limited\\nto H.D.W.’s initial spontaneous statement to her and what she did in response to H.D.W.’s\\nstatement.\\n\\n The district court then addressed the statements that H.D.W. made to Nurse Smith and\\nDr. Judy at the hospital with the government assuring the court that those witnesses would testify\\nthat their questions to H.D.W. were pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment. After\\nreviewing the relevant caselaw, the court held that Nurse Smith’s and Dr. Judy’s testimony about\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 6\\n\\n\\nH.D.W.’s statements at the hospital would be admissible under Rule 803(4) if a proper\\nfoundation was laid. Nurse Smith and Dr. Judy proceeded to testify about their exchanges with\\nH.D.W. at the hospital.\\n\\n Finally, the district court addressed the recording of H.D.W.’s second forensic interview\\nwith Ruleau. The court found that the interview did not contain the same indicia of reliability as\\nH.D.W.’s statements to Gudwer and Maycroft, so it concluded that the interview was\\ninadmissible hearsay. Ruleau, however, later testified in a general manner that H.D.W. disclosed\\nabuse during that interview, and that what H.D.W. told her was consistent with what he had\\npreviously told Gudwer and Maycroft.\\n\\n An additional evidentiary issue arose on the second day of trial. Wandahsega sought to\\nshow the jury a video of a supervised visit between H.D.W. and Wandahsega that occurred\\nseveral months after H.D.W.’s allegations. In that video, H.D.W. interacted well with his father\\nand hugged him. The district court concluded that the video did not fall under any exception to\\nthe rule against hearsay and that it was therefore inadmissible. Although the video itself was not\\nadmitted, Ruleau, who supervised the visit, testified about the visit and confirmed that H.D.W.\\nand Wandahsega hugged and got along well.\\n\\n The remainder of the government’s fact witnesses were law-enforcement officers.\\nSpecial Agent Fortunato and Detective Hansen testified about their interview of Wandahsega and\\nthe collection of evidence from Wandahsega’s apartment. In response to a question about\\nwhether he was aware of Wandahsega’s drinking problem before he arrived at Wandahsega’s\\napartment, Fortunato commented about a “prior incident where [Wandahsega] had passed out\\nand he had engaged in a homosexual act.” Officer Gregory Kurtz, the Hannahville officer who\\nreceived Gudwer’s initial complaint against Wandahsega, also testified briefly about his\\nconversation with Gudwer and the events that resulted from that call.\\n\\n The government next presented several expert witnesses. They included forensic\\nscientists at the Michigan State Police forensic laboratory, who explained the results of the fluid\\nand DNA testing done on H.D.W.’s underwear. A child-adolescent forensic interviewer with the\\nFBI testified about the legitimacy of the techniques used in Ruleau’s interviews of H.D.W.\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 7\\n\\n\\nFinally, a toxicology expert testified about blackouts, alcohol’s effect on short-term memory, and\\na person’s ability to complete certain tasks while intoxicated.\\n\\n Near the end of the government’s case, Wandahsega moved for a mistrial based on\\nFortunato’s statement about Wandahsega passing out and engaging in a homosexual act.\\nWandahsega argued that Fortunato had made the statement to prejudice the jury. The district\\ncourt ruled that Fortunato’s statement was responsive to the question that Wandahsega’s counsel\\nhad asked, but gave counsel the opportunity to stipulate to striking the statement from the record.\\nWhen the parties did not stipulate to striking the statement, the court denied the motion for a\\nmistrial. Wandahsega also moved for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the government’s\\ncase, which the court denied.\\n\\n At trial, Wandahsega did not testify or call any witnesses. After four days of trial, the\\njury convicted Wandahsega of abusive sexual contact under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5), but\\nacquitted him of aggravated abuse of a child under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c).\\n\\n 3. Sentencing\\n\\n The United States Probation Office prepared and filed a Presentence Report (PSR) prior\\nto Wandahsega’s sentencing. Section 2A3.4(c)(1) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines\\nprovides that if an offense involves “criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual\\nabuse,” then the sentencing court should apply § 2A3.1 of the Guidelines. The PSR therefore\\nrecommended applying § 2A3.1 to calculate Wandahsega’s offense level because his conduct\\ninvolved criminal sexual abuse. Applying § 2A3.1, the PSR recommended an offense level of\\n36. The PSR also recommended applying a five-level enhancement for engaging in a pattern of\\nprohibited sexual conduct under § 4B1.5(b)(1) of the Guidelines, resulting in an offense level of\\n41.\\n\\n Wandahsega objected to the PSR’s Guidelines calculation and reiterated his objections at\\nhis sentencing hearing. Both parties presented evidence to the district court, after which the\\ncourt made factual findings and overruled Wandahsega’s objections. The court agreed with the\\nPSR’s recommendations of an offense level of 41 and determined that the advisory Guideline\\nrange was 360 months to life imprisonment. But the court granted Wandahsega’s request for a\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 8\\n\\n\\nfour-level downward variance because it concluded that a sentence within the Guideline range\\nwas “greater than necessary” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, Wandahsega’s offense\\nlevel dropped from 41 to 37, and the final advisory Guideline range was 235 to 293 months’\\nimprisonment. The court imposed a sentence of 288 months. Wandahsega filed a notice of\\nappeal on the same day that the court entered its judgment.\\n\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n\\nA. Standards of review\\n\\n The issues in the present case involve multiple standards of review. As a general matter,\\nwe review the district court’s factual findings under the clear-error standard. United States\\nv. Katzopoulos, 437 F.3d 569, 574 (6th Cir. 2006). “[L]egal conclusions are reviewed de novo.”\\nUnited States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 473, 476 (6th Cir. 1999).\\n\\n Evidentiary rulings are reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard. United States\\nv. Phibbs, 999 F.2d 1053, 1078 (6th Cir. 1993). The abuse-of-discretion standard also applies to\\nthe district court’s decision not to grant Wandahsega’s motion for a mistrial, see United States\\nv. Forrest, 17 F.3d 916, 919 (6th Cir. 1994), and to the reasonableness of Wandahsega’s\\nsentence, see United States v. Studabaker, 578 F.3d 423, 430 (6th Cir. 2009).\\n\\nB. H.D.W.’s testimony through CCTV\\n\\n The district court allowed H.D.W. to testify through CCTV after the magistrate judge\\nheld a hearing and issued a Report and Recommendation on the issue. Wandahsega argues that\\nthe court erred in allowing H.D.W. to testify outside of the courtroom because (1) the magistrate\\njudge’s factual finding that H.D.W. was “unable to testify because of fear” and that there was “a\\nsubstantial likelihood, established by expert testimony, that the child would suffer emotional\\ntrauma from testifying,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3509(b)(1)(B), constituted clear error, and (2) the\\nCCTV testimony violated Wandahsega’s constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against\\nhim and to the due process of law.\\n\\n In response, the government points out that Wandahsega failed to object to the magistrate\\njudge’s Report and Recommendation. It also contends that the magistrate judge’s factual\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 9\\n\\n\\nfindings did not constitute clear error and that H.D.W.’s testimony did not violate Wandahsega’s\\nconstitutional rights.\\n\\n In this circuit, the failure to object to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation\\nresults in a waiver of appeal on that issue as long as the magistrate judge informs the parties of\\nthe potential waiver. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981); see also\\nThomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (holding that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver rule is within\\nits supervisory powers). This court may, however, “decline to apply the waiver rule where the\\ndistrict court’s error is so egregious that failure to permit appellate review would work a\\nmiscarriage of justice.” United States v. 1184 Drycreek Rd., 174 F.3d 720, 726 (6th Cir. 1999);\\nsee also Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155 (“[B]ecause the [Walters] rule is a nonjurisdictional waiver\\nprovision, the Court of Appeals may excuse the default in the interest of justice.”).\\n\\n Wandahsega does not dispute that he failed to object to the magistrate judge’s Report and\\nRecommendation regarding H.D.W.’s CCTV testimony. Nor does he dispute that the Report and\\nRecommendation included an explicit notice to the parties that objections “must be served on\\nopposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this\\nReport and Recommendation,” and that “[f]ailure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of\\nany further right to appeal.” Rather, Wandahsega argues that not excusing the default would\\nresult in a miscarriage of justice because utilizing CCTV “violates the Sixth Amendment in\\neviscerating the bedrock guarantee of confrontation.”\\n\\n Wandahsega has not provided a sufficient reason for us to excuse his waiver in the\\ninterest of justice. The fact that his constitutional rights are at issue does not in and of itself\\nmake our decision to decline to entertain his waived arguments a miscarriage of justice. See,\\ne.g., United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that a challenge to a\\ndenial of a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress was waived for failure to object to the Report\\nand Recommendation); Trzebuckowski v. City of Cleveland, 319 F.3d 853, 855 (6th Cir. 2003)\\n(holding that a challenge to a dismissal of a due-process claim was waived for failure to object to\\nthe Report and Recommendation).\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 10\\n\\n\\n Moreover, even if Wandahsega were allowed to contest the district court’s decision to let\\nH.D.W. testify by CCTV, each of his arguments would fail. The magistrate judge’s factual\\nfindings that (1) H.D.W. was unable to testify in front of his father because of fear, and (2) there\\nwas a substantial likelihood that he would suffer emotional trauma from testifying in front of his\\nfather, were not clearly erroneous. H.D.W. told both the magistrate judge and the government’s\\nexpert witness that he would be scared to testify in front of his father. And the expert witness,\\nwho had extensive experience in assessing trauma in children who have been sexually abused,\\nformed an individualized opinion that H.D.W. would suffer trauma if he had to testify in front of\\nWandahsega.\\n\\n Finally, Wandahsega contends that H.D.W.’s CCTV testimony violated Wandahsega’s\\nconstitutional rights to confront the witnesses against him and to due process. But the Supreme\\nCourt held in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), that such CCTV testimony is\\nconstitutional as long as the government “makes an adequate showing of necessity.” Id. at 855.\\nIn response to Craig, Congress passed 18 U.S.C. § 3509, which codifies Craig’s requirement\\nthat the trial court “hear evidence and determine whether use of [CCTV] is necessary to protect\\nthe welfare of the particular child witness who seeks to testify” and whether “the child witness\\nwould be traumatized . . . by the presence of the defendant.” Id. at 855–56.\\n\\n Although various courts and scholars have struggled to reconcile Craig with the Court’s\\nsubsequent holding in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (ruling that the\\nConfrontation Clause prohibits the admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless the\\nwitness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination),\\nCrawford did not overturn Craig. See United States v. Cox, 871 F.3d 479, 492 (6th Cir. 2017)\\n(Sutton, J., concurring) (“Crawford did not overturn Craig. And Craig governs us here, as junior\\ncourts may not overrule the handiwork of their superiors.”). We are therefore bound by Craig,\\nand because the district court’s decision to allow H.D.W. to testify by CCTV complied with the\\nrequirements of Craig and § 3509, Wandahsega’s constitutional argument fails.\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 11\\n\\n\\nC. Hearsay testimony of Dr. Judy and Nurse Smith\\n\\n Wandahsega next challenges numerous evidentiary rulings made during his trial. First,\\nhe challenges as hearsay the admission of Dr. Judy’s and Nurse Smith’s testimony, in which they\\ndiscussed what H.D.W. told them at the hospital. The district court allowed both witnesses to\\ntestify about what H.D.W. told them under the “statement made for medical diagnosis or\\ntreatment” exception to the rule against hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(4).\\n\\n Rule 803(4) provides that a hearsay statement that “(A) is made for—and is reasonably\\npertinent to—medical diagnosis or treatment; and (B) describes medical history; past or present\\nsymptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause” is “not excluded by the rule\\nagainst hearsay.” Wandahsega contends that the district court abused its discretion in admitting\\nthe testimony of Dr. Judy and Nurse Smith regarding H.D.W.’s statements to them because\\nMaycroft, according to Wandahsega, took H.D.W. to the hospital for investigatory purposes\\nrather than for medical treatment.\\n\\n The record does not support Wandahsega’s contention. Nurse Smith testified at trial that,\\nin response to her question to H.D.W. about why he was at the emergency room, H.D.W. told her\\nthat “[his] dad did something bad to [him] twice.” That statement is hearsay, but Nurse Smith\\nexplained that asking patients “what brings them [to the emergency room] to be seen” is an\\nimportant part of the triage process “[b]ecause it helps [the staff] determine what type of needs\\nthey need medically, physically, mentally, and how fast they go in the back to be evaluated by a\\nphysician.” She also testified that when someone arrives at the emergency room and says that\\nthey have been sexually assaulted, the identity of the perpetrator is important because it would\\naffect their diagnosis and treatment in terms of mental-health or emotional-health concerns.\\n\\n The record reflects that Nurse Smith “undertook her interviews for the primary purpose\\nof medical diagnosis, rather than for some other purpose, such as determining whether to notify\\nstate authorities of suspected abuse . . . ; deciding whether a protective order was necessary to\\nensure the [child’s] safety, . . . ; or obtaining evidence.” See United States v. Kappell, 418 F.3d\\n550, 556–57 (6th Cir. 2005). Nurse Smith never indicated that she was speaking with H.D.W.\\nfor any purpose other than to determine how to proceed with his medical treatment. The district\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 12\\n\\n\\ncourt therefore did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the government had laid a proper\\nfoundation for Nurse Smith’s testimony and that her testimony was admissible under Rule\\n803(4).\\n\\n Next, Dr. Judy testified that H.D.W. related that his father “had touched him\\ninappropriately, touched his penis and put his finger up his rectum on occasion.” Dr. Judy then\\ndecided that he needed to determine whether H.D.W. had suffered any physical injuries from the\\nassault or contracted any STDs. Wandahsega argues that because Dr. Judy never physically\\nexamined H.D.W., the latter’s statements to Dr. Judy were not made for medical diagnosis or\\ntreatment. But Dr. Judy explained that he sought H.D.W.’s consent to be examined, and that\\nH.D.W. refused. Because H.D.W. said that he was not currently in pain, Dr. Judy did not press\\nhim any further.\\n\\n The record supports the district court’s conclusion that Dr. Judy’s conversation with\\nH.D.W. was for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. Although Dr. Judy never\\nexamined H.D.W., he asked questions to determine the urgency of a physical examination and\\nultimately concluded that making H.D.W. uncomfortable was unnecessary. Dr. Judy also\\nordered STD tests based on the information that H.D.W. had given him. The fact that a police\\nofficer accompanied Maycroft and H.D.W. to the emergency room does not change the nature of\\nDr. Judy’s questions. In fact, Dr. Judy never indicated that he spoke with the police officer about\\nH.D.W.’s statements.\\n\\n Wandahsega nevertheless argues that, in order for the hearsay statements of a “very\\nyoung declarant” to be admissible under Rule 803(4), the child must display the “selfish\\nsubjective motive” necessary to establish the reliability of his statements to medical personnel.\\nIn other words, Wandahsega argues that the record must demonstrate that the child understood\\nthat he or she was speaking with medical personnel for the purpose of medical treatment. He\\ncites United States v. Turning Bear, 357 F.3d 730, 738 (8th Cir. 2004), for this proposition. The\\ndistrict court directly addressed Wandahsega’s argument, concluding that the Eighth Circuit\\nprecedent does not control because, in Kappell, the Sixth Circuit “clearly [did] not adopt that\\nprong of the Eighth Circuit opinion.”\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 13\\n\\n\\n In Kappell, this court affirmed the admission of children’s statements to a\\npsychotherapist and a social worker without analyzing whether the children understood the\\nmedical context of the interaction. Kappell, 418 F.3d at 557. The district court therefore\\ncorrectly concluded that Turning Bear is not persuasive authority. And even if Turning Bear\\nwere deemed applicable to the present case, which it is not, Nurse Smith and Dr. Judy both\\ntestified that they were wearing scrubs and nametags while speaking with H.D.W. Dr. Judy\\nexplained to H.D.W. that he was a physician and asked if he could perform a physical exam.\\nNurse Smith explained that she was a nurse. These circumstances support the proposition that\\nH.D.W. understood that he should tell the truth because he was at the hospital speaking with\\nmedical personnel for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment. We therefore conclude\\nthat the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the hearsay testimony of Dr. Judy and\\nNurse Smith.\\n\\nD. Hearsay testimony of Gudwer and Maycroft\\n\\n Wandahsega’s second evidentiary challenge is to the admission of testimony from\\nGudwer and Maycroft that included hearsay statements from H.D.W. accusing his father of\\nsexual abuse. The district court ultimately admitted the hearsay statements under Rule 807(a) of\\nthe Federal Rules of Evidence, the “residual exception” to the rule against hearsay.\\n\\n Rule 807(a) provides that\\n\\n [u]nder the following circumstances, a hearsay statement is not excluded by the\\n rule against hearsay even if the statement is not specifically covered by a hearsay\\n exception in Rule 803 or 804: (1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial\\n guarantees of trustworthiness; (2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact; (3) it\\n is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that\\n the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and (4) admitting it will best\\n serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.\\n\\nRegarding the first factor of Rule 807(a)’s four-part test, Wandahsega’s brief highlights\\nreliability issues when children are interviewed about potential abuse, including potential\\ninaccuracies due to suggestive questioning techniques and children’s general motivation to\\nplease their interviewers.\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 14\\n\\n\\n The Supreme Court listed the following factors as particularized guarantees of\\ntrustworthiness in the context of child sexual abuse: “(1) spontaneity; (2) consistent repetition;\\n(3) the mental state of the declarant; (4) the use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar\\nage; and (5) the lack of a motive to fabricate.” Stuart v. Wilson, 442 F.3d 506, 522 (6th Cir.\\n2006) (citing Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821–22 (1990)). As the district court explained\\nduring its application of Rule 807(a) at trial, H.D.W.’s statements to Gudwer and Maycroft were\\nreliable because they were not made in an interview setting. During the course of a normal\\nconversation with Gudwer, H.D.W. stated that he and his father “did PK.” That statement was\\nboth spontaneous and used terminology (“doing PK”) unexpected of a child of a similar age.\\nAnd each of Gudwer’s follow-up questions—“What is PK?” and “What do you mean?”—were\\nnonleading. See id. at 523 (stating that questions that “were not leading or suggestive” are more\\nlikely to be trustworthy).\\n\\n Similarly, when H.D.W. told Maycroft that his father was doing bad things to him, he had\\njust run up to greet her after she arrived at his home. As the district court concluded, such a\\n“spontaneous statement . . . has some equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.”\\nThe court also limited Gudwer’s testimony to that spontaneous statement, and did not allow her\\nto testify about H.D.W.’s answers to her follow-up questions. The spontaneity of H.D.W.’s\\nstatements, in tandem with the fact that H.D.W. consistently repeated his accusations to Gudwer,\\nNurse Smith, Dr. Judy, Ruleau, and the jury, support the proposition that H.D.W.’s initial\\nstatement to Maycroft was also trustworthy under the first part of Rule 807(a)’s test. See id. at\\n522 (listing consistent repetition as a particularized guarantee of trustworthiness).\\n\\n Wandahsega, however, argues that the testimony of Gudwer and Maycroft was not\\ntrustworthy under the first prong of Rule 807’s test because both witnesses dislike Wandahsega\\nand therefore had a reason to cast him in a negative light. But Wandahsega’s counsel had the\\nopportunity to cross-examine both Gudwer and Maycroft about their respective relationships\\nwith Wandahsega, and the jury had the opportunity to evaluate their credibility.\\n\\n Wandahsega next contends that the third prong of Rule 807(a)’s test was not met.\\nBecause H.D.W. himself testified at trial, Wandahsega argues that H.D.W.’s hearsay statements\\nto Gudwer and Maycroft were not the most probative evidence available as to whether\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 15\\n\\n\\nWandahsega abused him. But H.D.W.’s statements to Gudwer and Maycroft are more probative\\nregarding Wandahsega’s conduct than H.D.W.’s testimony alone. At trial, the only detail that\\nH.D.W. was able to provide about the alleged abuse was that Wandahsega had touched his\\nprivates more than one time. He said that he did not remember when the alleged abuse had\\nhappened, but when he spoke to Gudwer he told her that it had happened “a couple of nights\\nago.” Gudwer’s testimony therefore filled in details of H.D.W.’s testimony that were highly\\nprobative.\\n\\n Regarding H.D.W.’s statement to Maycroft, she was the person who took H.D.W. to the\\nhospital. Her testimony about those events would have been disjointed and incomplete if she had\\nnot been able to explain that H.D.W. first told her that his father had done something bad to him.\\nAnd the district court was careful to “draw the line” at H.D.W.’s first statement to Maycroft,\\nexcluding any statements that did not “really advance the ball too much” in terms of\\nprobativeness. In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting H.D.W.’s\\nhearsay statements to Gudwer and Maycroft under the residual hearsay exception.\\n\\nE. Video of H.D.W.’s supervised visit with Wandahsega\\n\\n Wandahsega’s third evidentiary challenge is to the district court’s decision to deny\\nWandahsega the opportunity to present to the jury a video of a supervised visit between H.D.W.\\nand Wandahsega. In the video, H.D.W. and Wandahsega had a visit at the Hannahville CPS\\nOffice while the present case was under investigation, and H.D.W. hugged and interacted well\\nwith Wandahsega. Wandahsega sought to admit the video to demonstrate that H.D.W. was not\\nafraid of his father. The district court concluded that the video did not fall under any exception\\nto the rule against hearsay, but it allowed Wandahsega’s counsel to cross-examine Ruleau, who\\nsupervised the visit, about what happened. Ruleau testified that, during the visit, H.D.W. and\\nWandahsega hugged and got along well for 30 or 40 minutes.\\n\\n Wandahsega contends that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing the\\nvideo to be played for the jury because Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that\\n“[i]f a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may\\nrequire the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 16\\n\\n\\nstatement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.” But the government did\\nnot introduce any portion of the video in question, making Rule 106 inapplicable. Rule 106,\\nfurthermore, does not transform inadmissible hearsay into admissible evidence. United States\\nv. Costner, 684 F.2d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 1982) (“Rule 106 is intended to eliminate the misleading\\nimpression created by taking a statement out of context . . . ; it is not designed to make\\nsomething admissible that should be excluded.”). Because the video falls under no exception to\\nthe rule against hearsay, Rule 106 provides no help to Wandahsega.\\n\\n Wandahsega also argues that the video should have been admitted under Rule 807(a), the\\nresidual hearsay exception. But Wandahsega failed to establish, either at trial or in his brief, that\\nthe video met the four requirements of Rule 807(a): that the statement (1) has “circumstantial\\nguarantees of trustworthiness;” (2) “is offered as evidence of a material fact;” (3) “is more\\nprobative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence; and (4) “will serve the\\npurposes of the rules of evidence and the interests of justice.” Specifically, Wandahsega failed\\nto explain why Ruleau’s testimony about the visit was less probative than the video. The district\\ncourt therefore did not abuse its discretion in excluding the video of H.D.W.’s supervised visit\\nwith Wandahsega.\\n\\nF. Wandahsega’s motion for a mistrial\\n\\n Wandahsega next argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his\\nmotion for a mistrial after Special Agent Fortunato, one of the officers who interviewed\\nWandahsega the day after H.D.W.’s hospital visit, testified that he “knew about a prior incident\\nwhere [Wandahsega] had passed out and . . . engaged in a homosexual act.” Fortunato’s\\ntestimony was in response to the following question from Wandahsega’s counsel: “And you\\nwere aware, were you not, before you even went [to Wandahsega’s home] that he had a\\nsignificant drinking problem?”\\n\\n Wandahsega argued at trial that Fortunato’s testimony was not responsive to the question\\nand was meant to prejudice the jury against Wandahsega. He therefore moved for a mistrial\\nbased on “prosecutorial misconduct on the part of the agent.” The court denied the motion\\nbecause it concluded that Fortunato’s testimony was responsive to the question that\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 17\\n\\n\\nWandahsega’s counsel had asked him. Wandahsega’s counsel did not move to strike the\\nstatement from the record or attempt to reach an agreement with the government to do so.\\n\\n On appeal, Wandahsega contends that Fortunato’s testimony violated his due-process\\nright to a fair trial and that Fortunato’s testimony “may have been injected intentionally to\\nprejudice Mr. Wandahsega.” This court has adopted a two-step approach for determining when\\nprosecutorial misconduct warrants a new trial. First, we must “consider whether the prosecutor’s\\nconduct and remarks were improper.” United States v. Carter, 236 F.3d 777, 783 (6th Cir.\\n2001). If the conduct was improper, “the court must then consider and weigh four factors in\\ndetermining whether the impropriety was flagrant and thus warrants reversal[:] . . . (1) whether\\nthe conduct and remarks of the prosecutor tended to mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant;\\n(2) whether the conduct or remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) whether the remarks were\\ndeliberately or accidentally made; and (4) whether the evidence against the defendant was\\nstrong.” Id.\\n\\n Wandahsega has the better argument on the first step of this analysis. The question was\\nwhether Fortunato was aware of Wandahsega’s drinking problem, and the response about\\nWandahsega engaging in a homosexual act was not responsive to that question. But even\\nassuming that Fortunato’s testimony was improper and prejudicial, the balance of the remaining\\nfactors weighs against a mistrial. The remark was isolated and not extensive. Fortunato did not\\nexpound upon the alleged homosexual act, even when asked to do so on recross examination by\\nWandahsega’s counsel, and no other witness discussed Wandahsega’s sexual orientation after\\nFortunato’s testimony.\\n\\n In addition, the remainder of the evidence against Wandahsega was strong. Five\\nwitnesses testified that H.D.W. told them about the sexual abuse, and H.D.W. himself testified\\nabout that abuse. In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wandahsega’s\\nmotion for a mistrial.\\n\\nG. Sufficiency of the evidence\\n\\n Wandahsega’s final evidentiary challenge relates to the proof supporting his conviction\\nfor abusive sexual conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5). He points to various alleged\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 18\\n\\n\\ndeficiencies: (1) the possibility that the DNA evidence found on H.D.W.’s underwear was\\ncontaminated when it was transferred by the police or in the wash; (2) the reliability of child\\nwitnesses; (3) the witnesses’ “controversial relationships” with Wandahsega; (4) a lack of\\ntestimony that Wandahsega engaged in sexual contact with H.D.W., as opposed to generally\\ndoing “something bad” to him; and (5) a lack of evidence surrounding Wandahsega’s specific\\nintent to engage in sexual activity with H.D.W. Wandahsega moved for a judgment of acquittal\\nunder Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure at trial, which the district court denied.\\n\\n “[W]hen the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the standard of review is\\n‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational\\ntrier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’”\\nUnited States v. Swidan, 888 F.2d 1076, 1080 (6th Cir. 1989) (emphasis in original) (quoting\\nJackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). The elements of abusive sexual contact under\\n18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5) are: (1) knowingly engaging in sexual contact with another person; (2) at\\nthe time of the sexual contact, the other person had not yet reached the age of twelve years; and\\n(3) the sexual contact occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. By\\nstipulation, the parties agreed that the only element at issue was whether Wandahsega had\\nengaged in sexual contact with H.D.W. “[T]he term ‘sexual contact’ means the intentional\\ntouching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh,\\nor buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify\\nthe sexual desire of any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 2246(3)\\n\\n Even without the DNA evidence or H.D.W.’s direct testimony, the government produced\\nsufficient evidence to allow a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that\\nWandahsega knowingly engaged in sexual contact with H.D.W. Gudwer testified that when she\\nspoke with H.D.W. about “PK,” he looked down and pointed to his groin area and said, “just like\\ndad and his girlfriend do.” And Dr. Judy testified that H.D.W. told Dr. Judy that his (H.D.W.’s)\\ndad “had touched him inappropriately, touched his penis and put his finger up his rectum on\\noccasion.”\\n\\n Regarding Gudwer’s, Maycroft’s, and H.D.W.’s “controversial relationships” with\\nWandahsega, all were cross-examined about any alleged bias against him. Ultimately, the jury\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 19\\n\\n\\nbelieved their testimony, and “[a]ll reasonable inferences and resolutions of credibility are made\\nin the jury’s favor.” See United States v. Washington, 702 F.3d 886, 891 (6th Cir. 2012). The\\nfact that Gudwer, Maycroft, and H.D.W. might have been biased against Wandahsega does not\\nrender their testimony insufficient for a conviction. See United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394,\\n414–15 (1980) (“It is for [jurors] and not for appellate courts, to say that a particular witness\\nspoke the truth or fabricated a cock-and-bull story.”). The jury was entitled to credit their\\ntestimony, which was wholly consistent with the rest of the evidence presented at trial.\\n\\n Finally, Wandahsega contends that the government failed to prove that Wandahsega\\nknew that he was engaging in sexual conduct with H.D.W. because, if he did engage in such\\nconduct, it could have occurred during an alcohol-related blackout. But as the government’s\\nexpert witness testified, “you are up on your feet, you’re moving, you’re doing actions, but you\\nare not recording those memories” during a blackout. This is in contrast to “passing out,” when\\none is “unconscious” and in “a comatose state.” Blackouts accordingly affect one’s ability to\\nstore and retrieve memories of events that occurred during the blackout but, according to the\\ngovernment’s expert witness, do not affect one’s ability to complete intentional acts or to\\ndifferentiate right from wrong. The jury therefore had sufficient evidence to rationally conclude\\nthat Wandahsega knew that he was engaging in sexual conduct with H.D.W., even if he had been\\nblacked out at the time. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Wandahsega’s\\nmotion for a judgment of acquittal.\\n\\nH. Wandahsega’s sentence\\n\\n We now turn to Wandahsega’s challenges to his sentence. He makes three challenges to\\nthe procedural reasonableness of his sentence, and one challenge to its substantive\\nreasonableness.\\n\\n A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court “(1) properly calculated the\\napplicable advisory Guidelines range; (2) considered the other [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors as\\nwell as the parties’ arguments for a sentence outside the Guidelines range; and (3) adequately\\narticulated its reasoning for imposing the particular sentence chosen, including any rejection of\\nthe parties’ arguments for an outside-Guidelines sentence and any decision to deviate from the\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 20\\n\\n\\nadvisory Guidelines range.” United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 581 (6th Cir. 2007). If the\\ncourt’s sentence was procedurally sound, then we “consider the sentence’s substantive\\nreasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the\\ncircumstances, including the extent of a variance from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United\\nStates, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). For sentences within the Guidelines range, we “may, but [are]\\nnot required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness.” Id.\\n\\n 1. Enhancement for a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct\\n\\n Wandahsega first argues that his sentence is procedurally flawed because enhancing his\\noffense level under § 4B1.5(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines was not supported by a\\npreponderance of the evidence. Section 4B1.5(b)(1) provides for a five-level enhancement when\\n“the defendant’s instant offense of conviction is a covered sex crime . . . and the defendant\\nengaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” A defendant engages “in a\\npattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct if[,] on at least two separate occasions, the\\ndefendant engaged in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines\\nManual § 4B1.5 cmt. n.4(B)(i).\\n\\n Wandahsega argues that the evidence does not support a finding of at least two separate\\noccasions of prohibited sexual conduct with H.D.W., and further argues that the district court\\nerred in counting as one occasion the very conduct underlying the crime of conviction. Counting\\nthe conduct underlying the crime of conviction as one instance of conduct supporting the\\napplication of § 4B1.5, he argues, amounts to impermissible “double counting” because\\nWandahsega’s base offense level already accounts for the offense of conviction.\\n\\n But according to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary to § 4B1.5, “[a]n occasion of\\nprohibited sexual conduct may be considered . . . without regard to whether the occasion\\noccurred . . . during the course of the instant offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual\\n§ 4B1.5 cmt. n.4(B)(ii). Binding caselaw also supports the proposition that the two required\\noccasions of prohibited sexual conduct for § 4B1.5(b)(1)’s enhancement may include the instant\\noffense of conviction. See United States v. Al-Cholan, 610 F.3d 945, 954 n.4 (6th Cir. 2010)\\n(“These two separate occasions [for § 4B1.5(b)(1)’s enhancement] may include the instant\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 21\\n\\n\\noffense, and prior occasions need not have resulted in a conviction to qualify.” (internal\\nquotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 285 (2d Cir.\\n2012) (“[The defendant’s] conviction on Count Three clearly provides one of the two occasions\\nof prohibited sexual conduct necessary to establish a pattern of activity.”). Wandahsega has\\ncited no contrary authority, aside from the dissent in Broxmeyer. The district court therefore did\\nnot err in counting the conduct underlying Wandahsega’s conviction for the purposes of applying\\n§ 4B1.5(b)(1).\\n\\n Wandahsega also argues that a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding\\nof a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct. At trial, however, H.D.W. testified\\nthat his father had touched his genitals more than one time on different days. Dr. Judy further\\ntestified that H.D.W. said that Wandahsega had touched him on two separate occasions a number\\nof days before going to the hospital. And during H.D.W.’s second forensic interview with\\nRuleau, which was not admitted at trial but was presented at the sentencing hearing, H.D.W.\\nreaffirmed that his father had touched him multiple times. The district court’s factual finding\\nthat Wandahsega had engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct with H.D.W. was\\ntherefore not clearly erroneous.\\n\\n 2. Enhancement based on acquitted conduct\\n\\n In his second procedural challenge to his sentence, Wandahsega contends that the district\\ncourt erred in using conduct for which he was acquitted (aggravated sexual abuse) to enhance his\\nsentence under § 2A3.4(c)(1) of the Guidelines. Section 2A3.4(c)(1) of the Guidelines provides\\nthat if an offense involves “criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual abuse,”\\nthen the sentencing court should apply § 2A3.1 of the Guidelines. Section 2A3.1, which\\naddresses sentencing for criminal sexual abuse, provides for a base offense level of 30, whereas\\n§ 2A3.4, which addresses sentencing for abusive sexual contact, provides for a base offense level\\nof 20. Sexual abuse consists of, among other things, “knowingly . . . engag[ing] in a sexual act\\nwith another person if that other person is . . . incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct.”\\n18 U.S.C. § 2242(2)(A). Criminal sexual abuse involves a sexual act rather than sexual contact.\\nSee 18 U.S.C. § 2242. A sexual act is defined as:\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 22\\n\\n\\n (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for\\n purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon\\n penetration, however slight;\\n (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the\\n mouth and the anus;\\n (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by a\\n hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,\\n degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or\\n (D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another\\n person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse,\\n humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any\\n person.\\n\\nId. § 2246(2).\\n\\n The district court applied § 2A3.1 to calculate Wandahsega’s offense level because he\\nwas charged with aggravated sexual abuse in addition to abusive sexual contact. It concluded\\nthat, although Wandahsega had been acquitted of aggravated sexual abuse, the government had\\nproven by a preponderance of the evidence that Wandahsega had committed such abuse. The\\ncourt based this conclusion on H.D.W.’s testimony and his statements to other witnesses:\\n\\n At one point he describe[d] the act that [Wandahsega] was perpetrating on him to\\n the point where it caused pain. That’s in the context of a discussion about his butt\\n hole being hurt. He also talk[ed] about contact with his, where his pee comes out\\n and where his poop comes out. And he described [Wandahsega] using his hands\\n to accomplish that, those sexual acts.\\n\\n Wandahsega contends that (1) “the use of acquitted conduct to enhance a sentence defies\\nnotions of justice,” and (2) the allegations of sexual abuse were not proven by a preponderance\\nof the evidence. He cites dissenting opinions and an out-of-circuit district court opinion to\\nhighlight the alleged injustice of using acquitted conduct to determine a defendant’s sentence.\\nBut controlling caselaw explicitly allows sentencing courts to consider such acquitted conduct.\\nIn United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997), for example, the Supreme Court held that “a\\njury’s verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct\\nunderlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of\\nthe evidence.” Id. at 157. An en banc panel of this court similarly held that “the district court’s\\nconsideration of acquitted conduct in sentencing passes constitutional muster . . . insofar as\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 23\\n\\n\\nenhancements based on acquitted conduct do not increase a sentence beyond the maximum\\npenalty provided by the United States Code.” United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381, 386 (6th Cir.\\n2008) (en banc). Because the district court determined that the government had proven by a\\npreponderance of the evidence that Wandahsega committed criminal sexual abuse and did not\\nsentence Wandahsega beyond the maximum penalty provided for by the statute, the court\\ncorrectly concluded that it could consider the sexual abuse for which Wandahsega was acquitted\\nin determining his sentence.\\n\\n Nor did the district court commit clear error in determining that the government had\\nproven by a preponderance of evidence that Wandahsega had committed criminal sexual abuse\\nby engaging in sexual acts with H.D.W. H.D.W. testified that his father had touched H.D.W.’s\\nprivates—where he “poop[s] and pee[s].” And Dr. Judy testified that H.D.W. said that, a\\nnumber of days prior to H.D.W.’s hospital visit, Wandahsega had touched H.D.W.’s “penis and\\nput his finger up his rectum on occasion.” Those incidents fit within the definition of a sexual\\nact, which includes “the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by\\na hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or\\ngratify the sexual desire of any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2)(C). And because H.D.W. was\\n“incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct” at six years of age, the government proved by\\nat least a preponderance of the evidence that Wandahsega committed sexual abuse. See id.\\n§ 2242(2)(A).\\n\\n Even without the DNA evidence, which Wandahsega contends was “essentially\\nmeaningless,” the district court found that H.D.W. was credible. See Anderson v. City of\\nBessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985) (“Where there are two permissible views of the\\nevidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”); United States v.\\nEsteppe, 483 F.3d 447, 452 (6th Cir. 2007) (“We afford the district court’s credibility\\ndeterminations regarding witness testimony great deference . . . .”). The district court therefore\\ndid not err in applying § 2A3.1 of the Guidelines to Wandahsega’s sentence.\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 24\\n\\n\\n 3. Special assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act\\n\\n Wandahsega’s third procedural challenge to his sentence concerns the imposition of a\\n$5,000 special assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA) of 2015,\\n18 U.S.C. § 3014(a)(2). The JVTA provides that, in addition to the standard special assessment\\nagainst those convicted of felonies under 18 U.S.C. § 3013, “the court shall assess an amount of\\n$5,000 on any non-indigent person or entity convicted of an offense under . . . chapter 109A\\n(relating to sexual abuse).” Id. § 3014(a)(2). Defendants have “20 years after the release from\\nimprisonment” to pay the assessment. Id. §§ 3014(g), 3613(b). At sentencing, the district court\\nimposed the special assessment without making a detailed factual finding of Wandahsega’s\\nnonindigence, but “detailed findings are not necessary where it can be inferred that the district\\ncourt considered the defendant’s ability to pay and other factors required by law.” See United\\nStates v. Powell, 423 F. App’x 602, 610–11 (6th Cir. 2011).\\n\\n Wandahsega contends that the district court erred in imposing the JVTA special\\nassessment because he was indigent at the time of sentencing. He was found eligible for\\ncourt-appointed counsel in the district court, and the court determined that he would be unable to\\npay a fine. Moreover, the PSR stated that Wandahsega has never had a job earning more than\\n$10 per hour, that he has no assets other than a checking account containing $200, and that he\\nhas $30,000 in outstanding medical bills. But the PSR also said that Wandahsega “believes he\\nwill obtain employment with Hannahville Indian Community upon his release.” The PSR\\ntherefore concluded that, although Wandahsega could not “satisfy a lump sum payment in the\\nadvisory fine range,” he “may be able to make incremental payments towards a financial\\nsanction.”\\n\\n Because Wandahsega did not object to the $5,000 special assessment before the district\\ncourt, he “may obtain relief on appeal only if the error is ‘plain’ and ‘affects substantial rights.’”\\nSee United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 385 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting Fed. R. Crim.\\nP. 52(b)). Section 3014 does not define the term “indigent,” but this court has held that in\\nassessing indigency, the court must resolve two basic questions: “(1) Is the defendant\\nimpoverished now; and (2) if so, does the defendant have the means to provide for himself so\\nthat he will not always be impoverished?” United States v. Shepherd, -- F.3d --, No. 18-3993,\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 25\\n\\n\\n2019 WL 1925640, at *3 (6th Cir. May 1, 2019) (emphasis in original). We may therefore\\nconsider a defendant’s future earning potential in determining indigency. Id.\\n\\n Wandahsega argues that he is currently impoverished due to his outstanding debts and\\nlack of assets. He further contends that his substance-abuse and mental-health issues impede his\\nfuture ability to earn money, as does a federal sex-offense conviction on his record. Contrary to\\nhis argument, however, the PSR states that Wandahsega “believes he will obtain employment\\nwith Hannahville Indian Community upon his release.” And Wandahsega does not address why\\nhe would be unable to earn money while incarcerated. See United States v. King, 466 F. App’x\\n484, 489–90 (6th Cir. 2012) (upholding the imposition of a fine despite the defendant’s current\\nlack of ability to pay it, where he could participate in the Bureau of Prisons’ Financial Program\\nto work the fine off). Even if Wandahsega should be classified as impoverished now, and even if\\nhe earns only a minimum hourly wage when released from prison, he has not demonstrated that\\nhe will be unable to pay the assessment in increments over a twenty-year period.\\n\\n Furthermore, the fact that Wandahsega qualified for court-appointed counsel “is\\nprobative but not dispositive of whether [he] is indigent under § 3014.” Shepherd, 2019 WL\\n1925640, at *4. District courts may appoint counsel to defendants if they are “financially unable\\nto obtain adequate representation,” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a), but “the standard of financial inability\\nis ‘something less than indigency or destitution.’” Brown v. United States, 716 F. App’x 488,\\n492 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653, 660 (2d Cir. 1983)).\\n“Indigency is a more dire condition than simply living paycheck-to-paycheck: it summons the\\nthought of one who earns no paycheck at all and instead relies on others for life’s basic\\nnecessities.” Shepherd, 2019 WL 1925640, at *3.\\n\\n Finally, the JVTA special assessment is not discretionary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a)(2)\\n(“[T]he court shall assess an amount of $5,000 on any non-indigent person . . . .” (emphasis\\nadded)). It is akin to a fine imposed as part of a sentence. For fines under the Sentencing\\nGuidelines, the district court “shall” impose a fine and the defendant bears the burden of proving\\nindigency. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5E1.2. Wandahsega has failed to show that the\\ndistrict court plainly erred in concluding that he failed to meet that burden. He has also failed to\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 26\\n\\n\\ndemonstrate that any alleged error by the district court affected his substantial rights, as required\\nunder the plain-error standard.\\n\\n 4. Substantive reasonableness of the sentence\\n\\n Finally, Wandahsega contends that his 288-month (24-year) sentence is substantively\\nunreasonable because it is excessive in light of the purposes of sentencing. For a sentence to be\\nsubstantively reasonable, “it must be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances of the\\noffense and offender, and sufficient but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes”\\nof § 3553(a). United States v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503, 512 (citation and internal quotation marks\\nomitted). This court applies a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness to a\\nwithin-guidelines sentence. Vonner, 516 F.3d at 389. Demonstrating that a below-Guidelines\\nsentence is unreasonable “is even more demanding.” United States v. Curry, 536 F.3d 571, 573\\n(6th Cir. 2008).\\n\\n Wandahsega has not explained why the district court’s sentence is not proportionate to\\nthe seriousness of the offense for which he was convicted, nor has he explained in more than a\\nconclusory manner why the sentence is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of\\n§ 3553(a). In fact, the district court departed from the Sentencing Guidelines and varied\\ndownward four levels when sentencing Wandahsega because it found that the Guidelines range\\nof 360 months to life imprisonment was “greater than necessary.”\\n\\n To determine the sentence, which ended up being 72 months below the Guidelines range,\\nthe district court carefully considered each of the factors set out in § 3553(a) and explained the\\nreasoning behind the sentence. Wandahsega therefore has not met his heavy burden of\\ndemonstrating that his below-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable. The district court therefore\\ndid not abuse its discretion in sentencing Wandahsega to 288 months of imprisonment.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For all of the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM all aspects of the district court’s\\njudgment.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4398992/\", \"author_raw\": \"RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"CLAY"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GILMAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"KETHLEDGE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621739/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Roy WANDAHSEGA, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-21\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0097p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │ No. 18-1219\n >\n v. │\n │\n │\n PATRICK ROY WANDAHSEGA, │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.\n No. 2:16-cr-00020-1—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.\n\n Argued: May 1, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 21, 2019\n\n Before: CLAY, GILMAN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Clare E. Freeman, THE FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP, P.L.L.C., La Porte, Texas,\nfor Appellant. Austin J. Hakes, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids,\nMichigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Clare E. Freeman, THE FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP,\nP.L.L.C., La Porte, Texas, for Appellant. Hannah N. Bobee, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\nOFFICE, Marquette, Michigan, for Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Patrick Roy Wandahsega was convicted by a\njury of abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5), after Wandahsega’s\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 2\n\n\nthen-six-year-old son, H.D.W., told his grandmother and several others that Wandahsega had\ntouched him inappropriately. On appeal, Wandahsega argues that the district court erred in\nallowing H.D.W. to testify by closed-circuit television (CCTV). He also challenges several of\nthe district court’s evidentiary rulings at trial, the court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial, and\nthe court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the alleged insufficiency of\nthe evidence. Finally, Wandahsega contends that his sentence is both procedurally and\nsubstantively unreasonable. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM all aspects of the\ndistrict court’s judgment.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\nA. Factual background\n\n At the time of the events in question, Wandahsega and H.D.W., who are both Native\nAmericans, lived on the Hannahville Reservation in Michigan. After his mother’s death, H.D.W.\nbegan splitting his time between his maternal grandparents’ home and Wandahsega’s apartment.\nWandahsega struggles with substance abuse, having participated in institutional substance-abuse\ntreatment programs on at least four occasions. While Wandahsega participated in treatment,\nH.D.W. stayed with his maternal grandparents.\n\n In December 2015, two days after H.D.W. returned to his father’s care after Wandahsega\nhad completed a period of substance-abuse treatment, H.D.W. allegedly told his maternal\ngrandmother, Elizabeth Gudwer, that he and Wandahsega “did PK . . . a couple of nights ago.”\nWhen Gudwer asked H.D.W. what he meant by “PK,” H.D.W. looked down, pointed to his groin\narea, and said, “just like dad and his girlfriend do.” Gudwer then called Hannahville Child\nProtective Services (CPS), where a worker told her to contact law enforcement. Law\nenforcement in turn told her to take H.D.W. to CPS. A CPS worker at the Hannahville Tribal\nCouncil, Betsy Ruleau, conducted a forensic interview during which H.D.W. did not disclose any\nabuse.\n\n After H.D.W.’s interview with Ruleau, he returned to his father’s care. That evening,\nTonya Maycroft, the mother of Wandahsega’s other children, visited Wandahsega’s home to ask\nH.D.W. if he wanted to decorate a Christmas tree with his half-siblings. H.D.W. ran up to\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 3\n\n\nMaycroft and told her that his father was doing “inappropriate” and “bad things” to him. At that\npoint, Maycroft did not know that H.D.W. had alerted Gudwer to similar behavior. Maycroft\nbrought H.D.W. to her home, asked him additional questions, called law enforcement, and spoke\nto Gudwer. She then took H.D.W. to the emergency room of the local hospital, where they were\nmet by a police officer.\n\n At the hospital, H.D.W. told Nurse Stacy Smith that his dad “did something bad” to him\ntwice. He also told Dr. Alex Judy that his dad had touched his penis and put a finger up his\nrectum several days prior to his hospital visit. H.D.W. said that this had happened on two\nseparate occasions. As for physical injuries, H.D.W. said that the alleged assault had hurt a little,\nbut that it did not cause bleeding and that he was not currently in pain. Dr. Judy asked H.D.W. if\nhe could examine H.D.W.’s anus and genital area, but H.D.W. refused. Because H.D.W. said\nthat he was not currently in pain, Dr. Judy did not press him any further. Dr. Judy then ordered\nurine testing to rule out the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).\n\n The day after H.D.W.’s hospital visit, Ruleau conducted a second forensic interview,\nduring which H.D.W. disclosed that Wandahsega had sexually abused him. H.D.W.’s disclosure\nwas consistent with what he had told Gudwer and Maycroft. That same day, FBI Special Agent\nJohn Fortunato and a local detective, Justin Hansen, went to Wandahsega’s apartment to\ninterview him, but they ended the interview early because Wandahsega appeared to be under the\ninfluence of drugs or alcohol. They returned the next day and conducted a recorded interview\nwith Wandahsega. He denied touching his son, but also said that he sometimes blacks out from\ndrinking and therefore did not know what, if anything, he might have done to H.D.W.\n\n Wandahsega consented to a search of his apartment and to the seizure of bed sheets, three\npairs of H.D.W.’s underwear, and a blanket from Wandahsega’s bedroom, where H.D.W. usually\nslept. He also consented to providing a DNA sample by cheek swab. The Michigan State Police\nForensic Laboratory subsequently found saliva on the inside rear portion of a pair of H.D.W.’s\nunderwear, and testing established that the saliva contained a mixture of both H.D.W.’s and\nWandahsega’s DNA.\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 4\n\n\nB. Procedural background\n\n A federal grand jury proceeded to indict Wandahsega. He was charged with aggravated\nabuse of a child under twelve-years old, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c), and with abusive\nsexual contact with a child under twelve-years old, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5).\n\n 1. Pretrial motions\n\n Prior to trial, the government filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(b)(1) to let H.D.W.\ntestify through CCTV. A magistrate judge held a hearing and heard testimony from a social\nworker about whether H.D.W. would be able to testify in front of his father. H.D.W. also\ntestified at the hearing and said that he would be scared to testify with Wandahsega present.\nAfter the hearing, the magistrate judge concluded (1) that H.D.W. would be unable to testify in\nfront of his father because of fear, and (2) that there was a substantial likelihood that H.D.W.\nwould suffer emotional trauma if forced to do so. Accordingly, the magistrate judge\nrecommended granting the government’s motion and allowing H.D.W. to testify at trial via two-\nway CCTV. Wandahsega did not object to the Report and Recommendation, which the district\ncourt adopted.\n\n The government filed two additional motions in limine. First, it filed a motion for the\nadmission of H.D.W.’s statements to Nurse Smith and Dr. Judy at the emergency room. The\ngovernment based its request on Rule 803(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides\nan exception to the rule against hearsay for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment.\nSecond, it filed a motion for the admission of H.D.W.’s statements to Gudwer and Maycroft\nunder Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the residual hearsay exception. That motion\nalso sought the admission of a video recording of Ruleau’s second interview with H.D.W.\nWandahsega opposed both motions. The magistrate judge ultimately recommended that the\nevidentiary issues be dealt with at trial after H.D.W.’s testimony and after the initial testimony of\nNurse Smith and Dr. Judy. After review, the district court adopted the Report and\nRecommendation.\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 5\n\n\n 2. The trial\n\n As its first witness, the government called H.D.W. H.D.W. was questioned in a room\nseparate from the jury and Wandahsega, and his testimony was transmitted to the jury by CCTV.\nHe testified that he no longer lives with his father because Wandahsega “did something bad to\n[him]” while he was “in [his] bedroom” in Wandahsega’s apartment. H.D.W. said that\nWandahsega touched H.D.W.’s privates—where he “poop[s] and pee[s]”—more than one time\nand that H.D.W. was telling the truth when he spoke to Nurse Smith, Dr. Judy, and Ruleau.\nFinally, H.D.W. testified that he preferred living with his grandparents to living with his father,\nand that he was upset with his father for drinking.\n\n The district court then addressed several outstanding evidentiary issues outside the\npresence of the jury, including the motions in limine that the magistrate judge had not resolved.\nFirst, the court addressed the admission of H.D.W.’s hearsay statements to Gudwer about his\nfather doing “PK” with him like his father and his father’s girlfriend did. Applying the four-part\ntest delineated by Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court found that H.D.W.’s\nstatements to Gudwer were admissible because they were spontaneous and therefore reliable.\nGudwer then testified about her exchange with H.D.W. and what she did in response.\n\n The district court next addressed the admission of H.D.W.’s hearsay statements to\nMaycroft when she picked him up from Wandahsega’s apartment to decorate a Christmas tree.\nBecause H.D.W.’s initial statement to Maycroft that his father was doing bad things to him was\nspontaneous, the court found it to be reliable and therefore admissible under Rule 807. But the\ncourt found that H.D.W.’s responses to Maycroft’s follow-up questions were inadmissible\nhearsay that did not fall under Rule 807’s exception. Maycroft’s testimony was therefore limited\nto H.D.W.’s initial spontaneous statement to her and what she did in response to H.D.W.’s\nstatement.\n\n The district court then addressed the statements that H.D.W. made to Nurse Smith and\nDr. Judy at the hospital with the government assuring the court that those witnesses would testify\nthat their questions to H.D.W. were pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment. After\nreviewing the relevant caselaw, the court held that Nurse Smith’s and Dr. Judy’s testimony about\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 6\n\n\nH.D.W.’s statements at the hospital would be admissible under Rule 803(4) if a proper\nfoundation was laid. Nurse Smith and Dr. Judy proceeded to testify about their exchanges with\nH.D.W. at the hospital.\n\n Finally, the district court addressed the recording of H.D.W.’s second forensic interview\nwith Ruleau. The court found that the interview did not contain the same indicia of reliability as\nH.D.W.’s statements to Gudwer and Maycroft, so it concluded that the interview was\ninadmissible hearsay. Ruleau, however, later testified in a general manner that H.D.W. disclosed\nabuse during that interview, and that what H.D.W. told her was consistent with what he had\npreviously told Gudwer and Maycroft.\n\n An additional evidentiary issue arose on the second day of trial. Wandahsega sought to\nshow the jury a video of a supervised visit between H.D.W. and Wandahsega that occurred\nseveral months after H.D.W.’s allegations. In that video, H.D.W. interacted well with his father\nand hugged him. The district court concluded that the video did not fall under any exception to\nthe rule against hearsay and that it was therefore inadmissible. Although the video itself was not\nadmitted, Ruleau, who supervised the visit, testified about the visit and confirmed that H.D.W.\nand Wandahsega hugged and got along well.\n\n The remainder of the government’s fact witnesses were law-enforcement officers.\nSpecial Agent Fortunato and Detective Hansen testified about their interview of Wandahsega and\nthe collection of evidence from Wandahsega’s apartment. In response to a question about\nwhether he was aware of Wandahsega’s drinking problem before he arrived at Wandahsega’s\napartment, Fortunato commented about a “prior incident where [Wandahsega] had passed out\nand he had engaged in a homosexual act.” Officer Gregory Kurtz, the Hannahville officer who\nreceived Gudwer’s initial complaint against Wandahsega, also testified briefly about his\nconversation with Gudwer and the events that resulted from that call.\n\n The government next presented several expert witnesses. They included forensic\nscientists at the Michigan State Police forensic laboratory, who explained the results of the fluid\nand DNA testing done on H.D.W.’s underwear. A child-adolescent forensic interviewer with the\nFBI testified about the legitimacy of the techniques used in Ruleau’s interviews of H.D.W.\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 7\n\n\nFinally, a toxicology expert testified about blackouts, alcohol’s effect on short-term memory, and\na person’s ability to complete certain tasks while intoxicated.\n\n Near the end of the government’s case, Wandahsega moved for a mistrial based on\nFortunato’s statement about Wandahsega passing out and engaging in a homosexual act.\nWandahsega argued that Fortunato had made the statement to prejudice the jury. The district\ncourt ruled that Fortunato’s statement was responsive to the question that Wandahsega’s counsel\nhad asked, but gave counsel the opportunity to stipulate to striking the statement from the record.\nWhen the parties did not stipulate to striking the statement, the court denied the motion for a\nmistrial. Wandahsega also moved for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the government’s\ncase, which the court denied.\n\n At trial, Wandahsega did not testify or call any witnesses. After four days of trial, the\njury convicted Wandahsega of abusive sexual contact under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5), but\nacquitted him of aggravated abuse of a child under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c).\n\n 3. Sentencing\n\n The United States Probation Office prepared and filed a Presentence Report (PSR) prior\nto Wandahsega’s sentencing. Section 2A3.4(c)(1) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines\nprovides that if an offense involves “criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual\nabuse,” then the sentencing court should apply § 2A3.1 of the Guidelines. The PSR therefore\nrecommended applying § 2A3.1 to calculate Wandahsega’s offense level because his conduct\ninvolved criminal sexual abuse. Applying § 2A3.1, the PSR recommended an offense level of\n36. The PSR also recommended applying a five-level enhancement for engaging in a pattern of\nprohibited sexual conduct under § 4B1.5(b)(1) of the Guidelines, resulting in an offense level of\n41.\n\n Wandahsega objected to the PSR’s Guidelines calculation and reiterated his objections at\nhis sentencing hearing. Both parties presented evidence to the district court, after which the\ncourt made factual findings and overruled Wandahsega’s objections. The court agreed with the\nPSR’s recommendations of an offense level of 41 and determined that the advisory Guideline\nrange was 360 months to life imprisonment. But the court granted Wandahsega’s request for a\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 8\n\n\nfour-level downward variance because it concluded that a sentence within the Guideline range\nwas “greater than necessary” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, Wandahsega’s offense\nlevel dropped from 41 to 37, and the final advisory Guideline range was 235 to 293 months’\nimprisonment. The court imposed a sentence of 288 months. Wandahsega filed a notice of\nappeal on the same day that the court entered its judgment.\n\n II. ANALYSIS\n\nA. Standards of review\n\n The issues in the present case involve multiple standards of review. As a general matter,\nwe review the district court’s factual findings under the clear-error standard. United States\nv. Katzopoulos, 437 F.3d 569, 574 (6th Cir. 2006). “[L]egal conclusions are reviewed de novo.”\nUnited States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 473, 476 (6th Cir. 1999).\n\n Evidentiary rulings are reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard. United States\nv. Phibbs, 999 F.2d 1053, 1078 (6th Cir. 1993). The abuse-of-discretion standard also applies to\nthe district court’s decision not to grant Wandahsega’s motion for a mistrial, see United States\nv. Forrest, 17 F.3d 916, 919 (6th Cir. 1994), and to the reasonableness of Wandahsega’s\nsentence, see United States v. Studabaker, 578 F.3d 423, 430 (6th Cir. 2009).\n\nB. H.D.W.’s testimony through CCTV\n\n The district court allowed H.D.W. to testify through CCTV after the magistrate judge\nheld a hearing and issued a Report and Recommendation on the issue. Wandahsega argues that\nthe court erred in allowing H.D.W. to testify outside of the courtroom because (1) the magistrate\njudge’s factual finding that H.D.W. was “unable to testify because of fear” and that there was “a\nsubstantial likelihood, established by expert testimony, that the child would suffer emotional\ntrauma from testifying,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3509(b)(1)(B), constituted clear error, and (2) the\nCCTV testimony violated Wandahsega’s constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against\nhim and to the due process of law.\n\n In response, the government points out that Wandahsega failed to object to the magistrate\njudge’s Report and Recommendation. It also contends that the magistrate judge’s factual\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 9\n\n\nfindings did not constitute clear error and that H.D.W.’s testimony did not violate Wandahsega’s\nconstitutional rights.\n\n In this circuit, the failure to object to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation\nresults in a waiver of appeal on that issue as long as the magistrate judge informs the parties of\nthe potential waiver. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981); see also\nThomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (holding that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver rule is within\nits supervisory powers). This court may, however, “decline to apply the waiver rule where the\ndistrict court’s error is so egregious that failure to permit appellate review would work a\nmiscarriage of justice.” United States v. 1184 Drycreek Rd., 174 F.3d 720, 726 (6th Cir. 1999);\nsee also Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155 (“[B]ecause the [Walters] rule is a nonjurisdictional waiver\nprovision, the Court of Appeals may excuse the default in the interest of justice.”).\n\n Wandahsega does not dispute that he failed to object to the magistrate judge’s Report and\nRecommendation regarding H.D.W.’s CCTV testimony. Nor does he dispute that the Report and\nRecommendation included an explicit notice to the parties that objections “must be served on\nopposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this\nReport and Recommendation,” and that “[f]ailure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of\nany further right to appeal.” Rather, Wandahsega argues that not excusing the default would\nresult in a miscarriage of justice because utilizing CCTV “violates the Sixth Amendment in\neviscerating the bedrock guarantee of confrontation.”\n\n Wandahsega has not provided a sufficient reason for us to excuse his waiver in the\ninterest of justice. The fact that his constitutional rights are at issue does not in and of itself\nmake our decision to decline to entertain his waived arguments a miscarriage of justice. See,\ne.g., United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that a challenge to a\ndenial of a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress was waived for failure to object to the Report\nand Recommendation); Trzebuckowski v. City of Cleveland, 319 F.3d 853, 855 (6th Cir. 2003)\n(holding that a challenge to a dismissal of a due-process claim was waived for failure to object to\nthe Report and Recommendation).\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 10\n\n\n Moreover, even if Wandahsega were allowed to contest the district court’s decision to let\nH.D.W. testify by CCTV, each of his arguments would fail. The magistrate judge’s factual\nfindings that (1) H.D.W. was unable to testify in front of his father because of fear, and (2) there\nwas a substantial likelihood that he would suffer emotional trauma from testifying in front of his\nfather, were not clearly erroneous. H.D.W. told both the magistrate judge and the government’s\nexpert witness that he would be scared to testify in front of his father. And the expert witness,\nwho had extensive experience in assessing trauma in children who have been sexually abused,\nformed an individualized opinion that H.D.W. would suffer trauma if he had to testify in front of\nWandahsega.\n\n Finally, Wandahsega contends that H.D.W.’s CCTV testimony violated Wandahsega’s\nconstitutional rights to confront the witnesses against him and to due process. But the Supreme\nCourt held in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), that such CCTV testimony is\nconstitutional as long as the government “makes an adequate showing of necessity.” Id. at 855.\nIn response to Craig, Congress passed 18 U.S.C. § 3509, which codifies Craig’s requirement\nthat the trial court “hear evidence and determine whether use of [CCTV] is necessary to protect\nthe welfare of the particular child witness who seeks to testify” and whether “the child witness\nwould be traumatized . . . by the presence of the defendant.” Id. at 855–56.\n\n Although various courts and scholars have struggled to reconcile Craig with the Court’s\nsubsequent holding in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (ruling that the\nConfrontation Clause prohibits the admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless the\nwitness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination),\nCrawford did not overturn Craig. See United States v. Cox, 871 F.3d 479, 492 (6th Cir. 2017)\n(Sutton, J., concurring) (“Crawford did not overturn Craig. And Craig governs us here, as junior\ncourts may not overrule the handiwork of their superiors.”). We are therefore bound by Craig,\nand because the district court’s decision to allow H.D.W. to testify by CCTV complied with the\nrequirements of Craig and § 3509, Wandahsega’s constitutional argument fails.\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 11\n\n\nC. Hearsay testimony of Dr. Judy and Nurse Smith\n\n Wandahsega next challenges numerous evidentiary rulings made during his trial. First,\nhe challenges as hearsay the admission of Dr. Judy’s and Nurse Smith’s testimony, in which they\ndiscussed what H.D.W. told them at the hospital. The district court allowed both witnesses to\ntestify about what H.D.W. told them under the “statement made for medical diagnosis or\ntreatment” exception to the rule against hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(4).\n\n Rule 803(4) provides that a hearsay statement that “(A) is made for—and is reasonably\npertinent to—medical diagnosis or treatment; and (B) describes medical history; past or present\nsymptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause” is “not excluded by the rule\nagainst hearsay.” Wandahsega contends that the district court abused its discretion in admitting\nthe testimony of Dr. Judy and Nurse Smith regarding H.D.W.’s statements to them because\nMaycroft, according to Wandahsega, took H.D.W. to the hospital for investigatory purposes\nrather than for medical treatment.\n\n The record does not support Wandahsega’s contention. Nurse Smith testified at trial that,\nin response to her question to H.D.W. about why he was at the emergency room, H.D.W. told her\nthat “[his] dad did something bad to [him] twice.” That statement is hearsay, but Nurse Smith\nexplained that asking patients “what brings them [to the emergency room] to be seen” is an\nimportant part of the triage process “[b]ecause it helps [the staff] determine what type of needs\nthey need medically, physically, mentally, and how fast they go in the back to be evaluated by a\nphysician.” She also testified that when someone arrives at the emergency room and says that\nthey have been sexually assaulted, the identity of the perpetrator is important because it would\naffect their diagnosis and treatment in terms of mental-health or emotional-health concerns.\n\n The record reflects that Nurse Smith “undertook her interviews for the primary purpose\nof medical diagnosis, rather than for some other purpose, such as determining whether to notify\nstate authorities of suspected abuse . . . ; deciding whether a protective order was necessary to\nensure the [child’s] safety, . . . ; or obtaining evidence.” See United States v. Kappell, 418 F.3d\n550, 556–57 (6th Cir. 2005). Nurse Smith never indicated that she was speaking with H.D.W.\nfor any purpose other than to determine how to proceed with his medical treatment. The district\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 12\n\n\ncourt therefore did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the government had laid a proper\nfoundation for Nurse Smith’s testimony and that her testimony was admissible under Rule\n803(4).\n\n Next, Dr. Judy testified that H.D.W. related that his father “had touched him\ninappropriately, touched his penis and put his finger up his rectum on occasion.” Dr. Judy then\ndecided that he needed to determine whether H.D.W. had suffered any physical injuries from the\nassault or contracted any STDs. Wandahsega argues that because Dr. Judy never physically\nexamined H.D.W., the latter’s statements to Dr. Judy were not made for medical diagnosis or\ntreatment. But Dr. Judy explained that he sought H.D.W.’s consent to be examined, and that\nH.D.W. refused. Because H.D.W. said that he was not currently in pain, Dr. Judy did not press\nhim any further.\n\n The record supports the district court’s conclusion that Dr. Judy’s conversation with\nH.D.W. was for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. Although Dr. Judy never\nexamined H.D.W., he asked questions to determine the urgency of a physical examination and\nultimately concluded that making H.D.W. uncomfortable was unnecessary. Dr. Judy also\nordered STD tests based on the information that H.D.W. had given him. The fact that a police\nofficer accompanied Maycroft and H.D.W. to the emergency room does not change the nature of\nDr. Judy’s questions. In fact, Dr. Judy never indicated that he spoke with the police officer about\nH.D.W.’s statements.\n\n Wandahsega nevertheless argues that, in order for the hearsay statements of a “very\nyoung declarant” to be admissible under Rule 803(4), the child must display the “selfish\nsubjective motive” necessary to establish the reliability of his statements to medical personnel.\nIn other words, Wandahsega argues that the record must demonstrate that the child understood\nthat he or she was speaking with medical personnel for the purpose of medical treatment. He\ncites United States v. Turning Bear, 357 F.3d 730, 738 (8th Cir. 2004), for this proposition. The\ndistrict court directly addressed Wandahsega’s argument, concluding that the Eighth Circuit\nprecedent does not control because, in Kappell, the Sixth Circuit “clearly [did] not adopt that\nprong of the Eighth Circuit opinion.”\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 13\n\n\n In Kappell, this court affirmed the admission of children’s statements to a\npsychotherapist and a social worker without analyzing whether the children understood the\nmedical context of the interaction. Kappell, 418 F.3d at 557. The district court therefore\ncorrectly concluded that Turning Bear is not persuasive authority. And even if Turning Bear\nwere deemed applicable to the present case, which it is not, Nurse Smith and Dr. Judy both\ntestified that they were wearing scrubs and nametags while speaking with H.D.W. Dr. Judy\nexplained to H.D.W. that he was a physician and asked if he could perform a physical exam.\nNurse Smith explained that she was a nurse. These circumstances support the proposition that\nH.D.W. understood that he should tell the truth because he was at the hospital speaking with\nmedical personnel for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment. We therefore conclude\nthat the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the hearsay testimony of Dr. Judy and\nNurse Smith.\n\nD. Hearsay testimony of Gudwer and Maycroft\n\n Wandahsega’s second evidentiary challenge is to the admission of testimony from\nGudwer and Maycroft that included hearsay statements from H.D.W. accusing his father of\nsexual abuse. The district court ultimately admitted the hearsay statements under Rule 807(a) of\nthe Federal Rules of Evidence, the “residual exception” to the rule against hearsay.\n\n Rule 807(a) provides that\n\n [u]nder the following circumstances, a hearsay statement is not excluded by the\n rule against hearsay even if the statement is not specifically covered by a hearsay\n exception in Rule 803 or 804: (1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial\n guarantees of trustworthiness; (2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact; (3) it\n is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that\n the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and (4) admitting it will best\n serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.\n\nRegarding the first factor of Rule 807(a)’s four-part test, Wandahsega’s brief highlights\nreliability issues when children are interviewed about potential abuse, including potential\ninaccuracies due to suggestive questioning techniques and children’s general motivation to\nplease their interviewers.\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 14\n\n\n The Supreme Court listed the following factors as particularized guarantees of\ntrustworthiness in the context of child sexual abuse: “(1) spontaneity; (2) consistent repetition;\n(3) the mental state of the declarant; (4) the use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar\nage; and (5) the lack of a motive to fabricate.” Stuart v. Wilson, 442 F.3d 506, 522 (6th Cir.\n2006) (citing Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821–22 (1990)). As the district court explained\nduring its application of Rule 807(a) at trial, H.D.W.’s statements to Gudwer and Maycroft were\nreliable because they were not made in an interview setting. During the course of a normal\nconversation with Gudwer, H.D.W. stated that he and his father “did PK.” That statement was\nboth spontaneous and used terminology (“doing PK”) unexpected of a child of a similar age.\nAnd each of Gudwer’s follow-up questions—“What is PK?” and “What do you mean?”—were\nnonleading. See id. at 523 (stating that questions that “were not leading or suggestive” are more\nlikely to be trustworthy).\n\n Similarly, when H.D.W. told Maycroft that his father was doing bad things to him, he had\njust run up to greet her after she arrived at his home. As the district court concluded, such a\n“spontaneous statement . . . has some equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.”\nThe court also limited Gudwer’s testimony to that spontaneous statement, and did not allow her\nto testify about H.D.W.’s answers to her follow-up questions. The spontaneity of H.D.W.’s\nstatements, in tandem with the fact that H.D.W. consistently repeated his accusations to Gudwer,\nNurse Smith, Dr. Judy, Ruleau, and the jury, support the proposition that H.D.W.’s initial\nstatement to Maycroft was also trustworthy under the first part of Rule 807(a)’s test. See id. at\n522 (listing consistent repetition as a particularized guarantee of trustworthiness).\n\n Wandahsega, however, argues that the testimony of Gudwer and Maycroft was not\ntrustworthy under the first prong of Rule 807’s test because both witnesses dislike Wandahsega\nand therefore had a reason to cast him in a negative light. But Wandahsega’s counsel had the\nopportunity to cross-examine both Gudwer and Maycroft about their respective relationships\nwith Wandahsega, and the jury had the opportunity to evaluate their credibility.\n\n Wandahsega next contends that the third prong of Rule 807(a)’s test was not met.\nBecause H.D.W. himself testified at trial, Wandahsega argues that H.D.W.’s hearsay statements\nto Gudwer and Maycroft were not the most probative evidence available as to whether\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 15\n\n\nWandahsega abused him. But H.D.W.’s statements to Gudwer and Maycroft are more probative\nregarding Wandahsega’s conduct than H.D.W.’s testimony alone. At trial, the only detail that\nH.D.W. was able to provide about the alleged abuse was that Wandahsega had touched his\nprivates more than one time. He said that he did not remember when the alleged abuse had\nhappened, but when he spoke to Gudwer he told her that it had happened “a couple of nights\nago.” Gudwer’s testimony therefore filled in details of H.D.W.’s testimony that were highly\nprobative.\n\n Regarding H.D.W.’s statement to Maycroft, she was the person who took H.D.W. to the\nhospital. Her testimony about those events would have been disjointed and incomplete if she had\nnot been able to explain that H.D.W. first told her that his father had done something bad to him.\nAnd the district court was careful to “draw the line” at H.D.W.’s first statement to Maycroft,\nexcluding any statements that did not “really advance the ball too much” in terms of\nprobativeness. In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting H.D.W.’s\nhearsay statements to Gudwer and Maycroft under the residual hearsay exception.\n\nE. Video of H.D.W.’s supervised visit with Wandahsega\n\n Wandahsega’s third evidentiary challenge is to the district court’s decision to deny\nWandahsega the opportunity to present to the jury a video of a supervised visit between H.D.W.\nand Wandahsega. In the video, H.D.W. and Wandahsega had a visit at the Hannahville CPS\nOffice while the present case was under investigation, and H.D.W. hugged and interacted well\nwith Wandahsega. Wandahsega sought to admit the video to demonstrate that H.D.W. was not\nafraid of his father. The district court concluded that the video did not fall under any exception\nto the rule against hearsay, but it allowed Wandahsega’s counsel to cross-examine Ruleau, who\nsupervised the visit, about what happened. Ruleau testified that, during the visit, H.D.W. and\nWandahsega hugged and got along well for 30 or 40 minutes.\n\n Wandahsega contends that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing the\nvideo to be played for the jury because Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that\n“[i]f a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may\nrequire the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 16\n\n\nstatement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.” But the government did\nnot introduce any portion of the video in question, making Rule 106 inapplicable. Rule 106,\nfurthermore, does not transform inadmissible hearsay into admissible evidence. United States\nv. Costner, 684 F.2d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 1982) (“Rule 106 is intended to eliminate the misleading\nimpression created by taking a statement out of context . . . ; it is not designed to make\nsomething admissible that should be excluded.”). Because the video falls under no exception to\nthe rule against hearsay, Rule 106 provides no help to Wandahsega.\n\n Wandahsega also argues that the video should have been admitted under Rule 807(a), the\nresidual hearsay exception. But Wandahsega failed to establish, either at trial or in his brief, that\nthe video met the four requirements of Rule 807(a): that the statement (1) has “circumstantial\nguarantees of trustworthiness;” (2) “is offered as evidence of a material fact;” (3) “is more\nprobative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence; and (4) “will serve the\npurposes of the rules of evidence and the interests of justice.” Specifically, Wandahsega failed\nto explain why Ruleau’s testimony about the visit was less probative than the video. The district\ncourt therefore did not abuse its discretion in excluding the video of H.D.W.’s supervised visit\nwith Wandahsega.\n\nF. Wandahsega’s motion for a mistrial\n\n Wandahsega next argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his\nmotion for a mistrial after Special Agent Fortunato, one of the officers who interviewed\nWandahsega the day after H.D.W.’s hospital visit, testified that he “knew about a prior incident\nwhere [Wandahsega] had passed out and . . . engaged in a homosexual act.” Fortunato’s\ntestimony was in response to the following question from Wandahsega’s counsel: “And you\nwere aware, were you not, before you even went [to Wandahsega’s home] that he had a\nsignificant drinking problem?”\n\n Wandahsega argued at trial that Fortunato’s testimony was not responsive to the question\nand was meant to prejudice the jury against Wandahsega. He therefore moved for a mistrial\nbased on “prosecutorial misconduct on the part of the agent.” The court denied the motion\nbecause it concluded that Fortunato’s testimony was responsive to the question that\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 17\n\n\nWandahsega’s counsel had asked him. Wandahsega’s counsel did not move to strike the\nstatement from the record or attempt to reach an agreement with the government to do so.\n\n On appeal, Wandahsega contends that Fortunato’s testimony violated his due-process\nright to a fair trial and that Fortunato’s testimony “may have been injected intentionally to\nprejudice Mr. Wandahsega.” This court has adopted a two-step approach for determining when\nprosecutorial misconduct warrants a new trial. First, we must “consider whether the prosecutor’s\nconduct and remarks were improper.” United States v. Carter, 236 F.3d 777, 783 (6th Cir.\n2001). If the conduct was improper, “the court must then consider and weigh four factors in\ndetermining whether the impropriety was flagrant and thus warrants reversal[:] . . . (1) whether\nthe conduct and remarks of the prosecutor tended to mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant;\n(2) whether the conduct or remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) whether the remarks were\ndeliberately or accidentally made; and (4) whether the evidence against the defendant was\nstrong.” Id.\n\n Wandahsega has the better argument on the first step of this analysis. The question was\nwhether Fortunato was aware of Wandahsega’s drinking problem, and the response about\nWandahsega engaging in a homosexual act was not responsive to that question. But even\nassuming that Fortunato’s testimony was improper and prejudicial, the balance of the remaining\nfactors weighs against a mistrial. The remark was isolated and not extensive. Fortunato did not\nexpound upon the alleged homosexual act, even when asked to do so on recross examination by\nWandahsega’s counsel, and no other witness discussed Wandahsega’s sexual orientation after\nFortunato’s testimony.\n\n In addition, the remainder of the evidence against Wandahsega was strong. Five\nwitnesses testified that H.D.W. told them about the sexual abuse, and H.D.W. himself testified\nabout that abuse. In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wandahsega’s\nmotion for a mistrial.\n\nG. Sufficiency of the evidence\n\n Wandahsega’s final evidentiary challenge relates to the proof supporting his conviction\nfor abusive sexual conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5). He points to various alleged\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 18\n\n\ndeficiencies: (1) the possibility that the DNA evidence found on H.D.W.’s underwear was\ncontaminated when it was transferred by the police or in the wash; (2) the reliability of child\nwitnesses; (3) the witnesses’ “controversial relationships” with Wandahsega; (4) a lack of\ntestimony that Wandahsega engaged in sexual contact with H.D.W., as opposed to generally\ndoing “something bad” to him; and (5) a lack of evidence surrounding Wandahsega’s specific\nintent to engage in sexual activity with H.D.W. Wandahsega moved for a judgment of acquittal\nunder Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure at trial, which the district court denied.\n\n “[W]hen the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the standard of review is\n‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational\ntrier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’”\nUnited States v. Swidan, 888 F.2d 1076, 1080 (6th Cir. 1989) (emphasis in original) (quoting\nJackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). The elements of abusive sexual contact under\n18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5) are: (1) knowingly engaging in sexual contact with another person; (2) at\nthe time of the sexual contact, the other person had not yet reached the age of twelve years; and\n(3) the sexual contact occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. By\nstipulation, the parties agreed that the only element at issue was whether Wandahsega had\nengaged in sexual contact with H.D.W. “[T]he term ‘sexual contact’ means the intentional\ntouching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh,\nor buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify\nthe sexual desire of any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 2246(3)\n\n Even without the DNA evidence or H.D.W.’s direct testimony, the government produced\nsufficient evidence to allow a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that\nWandahsega knowingly engaged in sexual contact with H.D.W. Gudwer testified that when she\nspoke with H.D.W. about “PK,” he looked down and pointed to his groin area and said, “just like\ndad and his girlfriend do.” And Dr. Judy testified that H.D.W. told Dr. Judy that his (H.D.W.’s)\ndad “had touched him inappropriately, touched his penis and put his finger up his rectum on\noccasion.”\n\n Regarding Gudwer’s, Maycroft’s, and H.D.W.’s “controversial relationships” with\nWandahsega, all were cross-examined about any alleged bias against him. Ultimately, the jury\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 19\n\n\nbelieved their testimony, and “[a]ll reasonable inferences and resolutions of credibility are made\nin the jury’s favor.” See United States v. Washington, 702 F.3d 886, 891 (6th Cir. 2012). The\nfact that Gudwer, Maycroft, and H.D.W. might have been biased against Wandahsega does not\nrender their testimony insufficient for a conviction. See United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394,\n414–15 (1980) (“It is for [jurors] and not for appellate courts, to say that a particular witness\nspoke the truth or fabricated a cock-and-bull story.”). The jury was entitled to credit their\ntestimony, which was wholly consistent with the rest of the evidence presented at trial.\n\n Finally, Wandahsega contends that the government failed to prove that Wandahsega\nknew that he was engaging in sexual conduct with H.D.W. because, if he did engage in such\nconduct, it could have occurred during an alcohol-related blackout. But as the government’s\nexpert witness testified, “you are up on your feet, you’re moving, you’re doing actions, but you\nare not recording those memories” during a blackout. This is in contrast to “passing out,” when\none is “unconscious” and in “a comatose state.” Blackouts accordingly affect one’s ability to\nstore and retrieve memories of events that occurred during the blackout but, according to the\ngovernment’s expert witness, do not affect one’s ability to complete intentional acts or to\ndifferentiate right from wrong. The jury therefore had sufficient evidence to rationally conclude\nthat Wandahsega knew that he was engaging in sexual conduct with H.D.W., even if he had been\nblacked out at the time. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Wandahsega’s\nmotion for a judgment of acquittal.\n\nH. Wandahsega’s sentence\n\n We now turn to Wandahsega’s challenges to his sentence. He makes three challenges to\nthe procedural reasonableness of his sentence, and one challenge to its substantive\nreasonableness.\n\n A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court “(1) properly calculated the\napplicable advisory Guidelines range; (2) considered the other [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors as\nwell as the parties’ arguments for a sentence outside the Guidelines range; and (3) adequately\narticulated its reasoning for imposing the particular sentence chosen, including any rejection of\nthe parties’ arguments for an outside-Guidelines sentence and any decision to deviate from the\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 20\n\n\nadvisory Guidelines range.” United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 581 (6th Cir. 2007). If the\ncourt’s sentence was procedurally sound, then we “consider the sentence’s substantive\nreasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the\ncircumstances, including the extent of a variance from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United\nStates, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). For sentences within the Guidelines range, we “may, but [are]\nnot required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness.” Id.\n\n 1. Enhancement for a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct\n\n Wandahsega first argues that his sentence is procedurally flawed because enhancing his\noffense level under § 4B1.5(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines was not supported by a\npreponderance of the evidence. Section 4B1.5(b)(1) provides for a five-level enhancement when\n“the defendant’s instant offense of conviction is a covered sex crime . . . and the defendant\nengaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” A defendant engages “in a\npattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct if[,] on at least two separate occasions, the\ndefendant engaged in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines\nManual § 4B1.5 cmt. n.4(B)(i).\n\n Wandahsega argues that the evidence does not support a finding of at least two separate\noccasions of prohibited sexual conduct with H.D.W., and further argues that the district court\nerred in counting as one occasion the very conduct underlying the crime of conviction. Counting\nthe conduct underlying the crime of conviction as one instance of conduct supporting the\napplication of § 4B1.5, he argues, amounts to impermissible “double counting” because\nWandahsega’s base offense level already accounts for the offense of conviction.\n\n But according to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary to § 4B1.5, “[a]n occasion of\nprohibited sexual conduct may be considered . . . without regard to whether the occasion\noccurred . . . during the course of the instant offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual\n§ 4B1.5 cmt. n.4(B)(ii). Binding caselaw also supports the proposition that the two required\noccasions of prohibited sexual conduct for § 4B1.5(b)(1)’s enhancement may include the instant\noffense of conviction. See United States v. Al-Cholan, 610 F.3d 945, 954 n.4 (6th Cir. 2010)\n(“These two separate occasions [for § 4B1.5(b)(1)’s enhancement] may include the instant\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 21\n\n\noffense, and prior occasions need not have resulted in a conviction to qualify.” (internal\nquotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 285 (2d Cir.\n2012) (“[The defendant’s] conviction on Count Three clearly provides one of the two occasions\nof prohibited sexual conduct necessary to establish a pattern of activity.”). Wandahsega has\ncited no contrary authority, aside from the dissent in Broxmeyer. The district court therefore did\nnot err in counting the conduct underlying Wandahsega’s conviction for the purposes of applying\n§ 4B1.5(b)(1).\n\n Wandahsega also argues that a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding\nof a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct. At trial, however, H.D.W. testified\nthat his father had touched his genitals more than one time on different days. Dr. Judy further\ntestified that H.D.W. said that Wandahsega had touched him on two separate occasions a number\nof days before going to the hospital. And during H.D.W.’s second forensic interview with\nRuleau, which was not admitted at trial but was presented at the sentencing hearing, H.D.W.\nreaffirmed that his father had touched him multiple times. The district court’s factual finding\nthat Wandahsega had engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct with H.D.W. was\ntherefore not clearly erroneous.\n\n 2. Enhancement based on acquitted conduct\n\n In his second procedural challenge to his sentence, Wandahsega contends that the district\ncourt erred in using conduct for which he was acquitted (aggravated sexual abuse) to enhance his\nsentence under § 2A3.4(c)(1) of the Guidelines. Section 2A3.4(c)(1) of the Guidelines provides\nthat if an offense involves “criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual abuse,”\nthen the sentencing court should apply § 2A3.1 of the Guidelines. Section 2A3.1, which\naddresses sentencing for criminal sexual abuse, provides for a base offense level of 30, whereas\n§ 2A3.4, which addresses sentencing for abusive sexual contact, provides for a base offense level\nof 20. Sexual abuse consists of, among other things, “knowingly . . . engag[ing] in a sexual act\nwith another person if that other person is . . . incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct.”\n18 U.S.C. § 2242(2)(A). Criminal sexual abuse involves a sexual act rather than sexual contact.\nSee 18 U.S.C. § 2242. A sexual act is defined as:\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 22\n\n\n (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for\n purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon\n penetration, however slight;\n (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the\n mouth and the anus;\n (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by a\n hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,\n degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or\n (D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another\n person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse,\n humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any\n person.\n\nId. § 2246(2).\n\n The district court applied § 2A3.1 to calculate Wandahsega’s offense level because he\nwas charged with aggravated sexual abuse in addition to abusive sexual contact. It concluded\nthat, although Wandahsega had been acquitted of aggravated sexual abuse, the government had\nproven by a preponderance of the evidence that Wandahsega had committed such abuse. The\ncourt based this conclusion on H.D.W.’s testimony and his statements to other witnesses:\n\n At one point he describe[d] the act that [Wandahsega] was perpetrating on him to\n the point where it caused pain. That’s in the context of a discussion about his butt\n hole being hurt. He also talk[ed] about contact with his, where his pee comes out\n and where his poop comes out. And he described [Wandahsega] using his hands\n to accomplish that, those sexual acts.\n\n Wandahsega contends that (1) “the use of acquitted conduct to enhance a sentence defies\nnotions of justice,” and (2) the allegations of sexual abuse were not proven by a preponderance\nof the evidence. He cites dissenting opinions and an out-of-circuit district court opinion to\nhighlight the alleged injustice of using acquitted conduct to determine a defendant’s sentence.\nBut controlling caselaw explicitly allows sentencing courts to consider such acquitted conduct.\nIn United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997), for example, the Supreme Court held that “a\njury’s verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct\nunderlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of\nthe evidence.” Id. at 157. An en banc panel of this court similarly held that “the district court’s\nconsideration of acquitted conduct in sentencing passes constitutional muster . . . insofar as\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 23\n\n\nenhancements based on acquitted conduct do not increase a sentence beyond the maximum\npenalty provided by the United States Code.” United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381, 386 (6th Cir.\n2008) (en banc). Because the district court determined that the government had proven by a\npreponderance of the evidence that Wandahsega committed criminal sexual abuse and did not\nsentence Wandahsega beyond the maximum penalty provided for by the statute, the court\ncorrectly concluded that it could consider the sexual abuse for which Wandahsega was acquitted\nin determining his sentence.\n\n Nor did the district court commit clear error in determining that the government had\nproven by a preponderance of evidence that Wandahsega had committed criminal sexual abuse\nby engaging in sexual acts with H.D.W. H.D.W. testified that his father had touched H.D.W.’s\nprivates—where he “poop[s] and pee[s].” And Dr. Judy testified that H.D.W. said that, a\nnumber of days prior to H.D.W.’s hospital visit, Wandahsega had touched H.D.W.’s “penis and\nput his finger up his rectum on occasion.” Those incidents fit within the definition of a sexual\nact, which includes “the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by\na hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or\ngratify the sexual desire of any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2)(C). And because H.D.W. was\n“incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct” at six years of age, the government proved by\nat least a preponderance of the evidence that Wandahsega committed sexual abuse. See id.\n§ 2242(2)(A).\n\n Even without the DNA evidence, which Wandahsega contends was “essentially\nmeaningless,” the district court found that H.D.W. was credible. See Anderson v. City of\nBessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985) (“Where there are two permissible views of the\nevidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”); United States v.\nEsteppe, 483 F.3d 447, 452 (6th Cir. 2007) (“We afford the district court’s credibility\ndeterminations regarding witness testimony great deference . . . .”). The district court therefore\ndid not err in applying § 2A3.1 of the Guidelines to Wandahsega’s sentence.\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 24\n\n\n 3. Special assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act\n\n Wandahsega’s third procedural challenge to his sentence concerns the imposition of a\n$5,000 special assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA) of 2015,\n18 U.S.C. § 3014(a)(2). The JVTA provides that, in addition to the standard special assessment\nagainst those convicted of felonies under 18 U.S.C. § 3013, “the court shall assess an amount of\n$5,000 on any non-indigent person or entity convicted of an offense under . . . chapter 109A\n(relating to sexual abuse).” Id. § 3014(a)(2). Defendants have “20 years after the release from\nimprisonment” to pay the assessment. Id. §§ 3014(g), 3613(b). At sentencing, the district court\nimposed the special assessment without making a detailed factual finding of Wandahsega’s\nnonindigence, but “detailed findings are not necessary where it can be inferred that the district\ncourt considered the defendant’s ability to pay and other factors required by law.” See United\nStates v. Powell, 423 F. App’x 602, 610–11 (6th Cir. 2011).\n\n Wandahsega contends that the district court erred in imposing the JVTA special\nassessment because he was indigent at the time of sentencing. He was found eligible for\ncourt-appointed counsel in the district court, and the court determined that he would be unable to\npay a fine. Moreover, the PSR stated that Wandahsega has never had a job earning more than\n$10 per hour, that he has no assets other than a checking account containing $200, and that he\nhas $30,000 in outstanding medical bills. But the PSR also said that Wandahsega “believes he\nwill obtain employment with Hannahville Indian Community upon his release.” The PSR\ntherefore concluded that, although Wandahsega could not “satisfy a lump sum payment in the\nadvisory fine range,” he “may be able to make incremental payments towards a financial\nsanction.”\n\n Because Wandahsega did not object to the $5,000 special assessment before the district\ncourt, he “may obtain relief on appeal only if the error is ‘plain’ and ‘affects substantial rights.’”\nSee United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 385 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting Fed. R. Crim.\nP. 52(b)). Section 3014 does not define the term “indigent,” but this court has held that in\nassessing indigency, the court must resolve two basic questions: “(1) Is the defendant\nimpoverished now; and (2) if so, does the defendant have the means to provide for himself so\nthat he will not always be impoverished?” United States v. Shepherd, -- F.3d --, No. 18-3993,\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 25\n\n\n2019 WL 1925640, at *3 (6th Cir. May 1, 2019) (emphasis in original). We may therefore\nconsider a defendant’s future earning potential in determining indigency. Id.\n\n Wandahsega argues that he is currently impoverished due to his outstanding debts and\nlack of assets. He further contends that his substance-abuse and mental-health issues impede his\nfuture ability to earn money, as does a federal sex-offense conviction on his record. Contrary to\nhis argument, however, the PSR states that Wandahsega “believes he will obtain employment\nwith Hannahville Indian Community upon his release.” And Wandahsega does not address why\nhe would be unable to earn money while incarcerated. See United States v. King, 466 F. App’x\n484, 489–90 (6th Cir. 2012) (upholding the imposition of a fine despite the defendant’s current\nlack of ability to pay it, where he could participate in the Bureau of Prisons’ Financial Program\nto work the fine off). Even if Wandahsega should be classified as impoverished now, and even if\nhe earns only a minimum hourly wage when released from prison, he has not demonstrated that\nhe will be unable to pay the assessment in increments over a twenty-year period.\n\n Furthermore, the fact that Wandahsega qualified for court-appointed counsel “is\nprobative but not dispositive of whether [he] is indigent under § 3014.” Shepherd, 2019 WL\n1925640, at *4. District courts may appoint counsel to defendants if they are “financially unable\nto obtain adequate representation,” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a), but “the standard of financial inability\nis ‘something less than indigency or destitution.’” Brown v. United States, 716 F. App’x 488,\n492 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653, 660 (2d Cir. 1983)).\n“Indigency is a more dire condition than simply living paycheck-to-paycheck: it summons the\nthought of one who earns no paycheck at all and instead relies on others for life’s basic\nnecessities.” Shepherd, 2019 WL 1925640, at *3.\n\n Finally, the JVTA special assessment is not discretionary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a)(2)\n(“[T]he court shall assess an amount of $5,000 on any non-indigent person . . . .” (emphasis\nadded)). It is akin to a fine imposed as part of a sentence. For fines under the Sentencing\nGuidelines, the district court “shall” impose a fine and the defendant bears the burden of proving\nindigency. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5E1.2. Wandahsega has failed to show that the\ndistrict court plainly erred in concluding that he failed to meet that burden. He has also failed to\n\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 26\n\n\ndemonstrate that any alleged error by the district court affected his substantial rights, as required\nunder the plain-error standard.\n\n 4. Substantive reasonableness of the sentence\n\n Finally, Wandahsega contends that his 288-month (24-year) sentence is substantively\nunreasonable because it is excessive in light of the purposes of sentencing. For a sentence to be\nsubstantively reasonable, “it must be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances of the\noffense and offender, and sufficient but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes”\nof § 3553(a). United States v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503, 512 (citation and internal quotation marks\nomitted). This court applies a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness to a\nwithin-guidelines sentence. Vonner, 516 F.3d at 389. Demonstrating that a below-Guidelines\nsentence is unreasonable “is even more demanding.” United States v. Curry, 536 F.3d 571, 573\n(6th Cir. 2008).\n\n Wandahsega has not explained why the district court’s sentence is not proportionate to\nthe seriousness of the offense for which he was convicted, nor has he explained in more than a\nconclusory manner why the sentence is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of\n§ 3553(a). In fact, the district court departed from the Sentencing Guidelines and varied\ndownward four levels when sentencing Wandahsega because it found that the Guidelines range\nof 360 months to life imprisonment was “greater than necessary.”\n\n To determine the sentence, which ended up being 72 months below the Guidelines range,\nthe district court carefully considered each of the factors set out in § 3553(a) and explained the\nreasoning behind the sentence. Wandahsega therefore has not met his heavy burden of\ndemonstrating that his below-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable. The district court therefore\ndid not abuse its discretion in sentencing Wandahsega to 288 months of imprisonment.\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n For all of the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM all aspects of the district court’s\njudgment.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Roy WANDAHSEGA, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-21\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0097p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │ No. 18-1219\\n >\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n PATRICK ROY WANDAHSEGA, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.\\n No. 2:16-cr-00020-1—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: May 1, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 21, 2019\\n\\n Before: CLAY, GILMAN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Clare E. Freeman, THE FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP, P.L.L.C., La Porte, Texas,\\nfor Appellant. Austin J. Hakes, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids,\\nMichigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Clare E. Freeman, THE FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP,\\nP.L.L.C., La Porte, Texas, for Appellant. Hannah N. Bobee, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\\nOFFICE, Marquette, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Patrick Roy Wandahsega was convicted by a\\njury of abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5), after Wandahsega’s\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 2\\n\\n\\nthen-six-year-old son, H.D.W., told his grandmother and several others that Wandahsega had\\ntouched him inappropriately. On appeal, Wandahsega argues that the district court erred in\\nallowing H.D.W. to testify by closed-circuit television (CCTV). He also challenges several of\\nthe district court’s evidentiary rulings at trial, the court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial, and\\nthe court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the alleged insufficiency of\\nthe evidence. Finally, Wandahsega contends that his sentence is both procedurally and\\nsubstantively unreasonable. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM all aspects of the\\ndistrict court’s judgment.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\nA. Factual background\\n\\n At the time of the events in question, Wandahsega and H.D.W., who are both Native\\nAmericans, lived on the Hannahville Reservation in Michigan. After his mother’s death, H.D.W.\\nbegan splitting his time between his maternal grandparents’ home and Wandahsega’s apartment.\\nWandahsega struggles with substance abuse, having participated in institutional substance-abuse\\ntreatment programs on at least four occasions. While Wandahsega participated in treatment,\\nH.D.W. stayed with his maternal grandparents.\\n\\n In December 2015, two days after H.D.W. returned to his father’s care after Wandahsega\\nhad completed a period of substance-abuse treatment, H.D.W. allegedly told his maternal\\ngrandmother, Elizabeth Gudwer, that he and Wandahsega “did PK . . . a couple of nights ago.”\\nWhen Gudwer asked H.D.W. what he meant by “PK,” H.D.W. looked down, pointed to his groin\\narea, and said, “just like dad and his girlfriend do.” Gudwer then called Hannahville Child\\nProtective Services (CPS), where a worker told her to contact law enforcement. Law\\nenforcement in turn told her to take H.D.W. to CPS. A CPS worker at the Hannahville Tribal\\nCouncil, Betsy Ruleau, conducted a forensic interview during which H.D.W. did not disclose any\\nabuse.\\n\\n After H.D.W.’s interview with Ruleau, he returned to his father’s care. That evening,\\nTonya Maycroft, the mother of Wandahsega’s other children, visited Wandahsega’s home to ask\\nH.D.W. if he wanted to decorate a Christmas tree with his half-siblings. H.D.W. ran up to\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 3\\n\\n\\nMaycroft and told her that his father was doing “inappropriate” and “bad things” to him. At that\\npoint, Maycroft did not know that H.D.W. had alerted Gudwer to similar behavior. Maycroft\\nbrought H.D.W. to her home, asked him additional questions, called law enforcement, and spoke\\nto Gudwer. She then took H.D.W. to the emergency room of the local hospital, where they were\\nmet by a police officer.\\n\\n At the hospital, H.D.W. told Nurse Stacy Smith that his dad “did something bad” to him\\ntwice. He also told Dr. Alex Judy that his dad had touched his penis and put a finger up his\\nrectum several days prior to his hospital visit. H.D.W. said that this had happened on two\\nseparate occasions. As for physical injuries, H.D.W. said that the alleged assault had hurt a little,\\nbut that it did not cause bleeding and that he was not currently in pain. Dr. Judy asked H.D.W. if\\nhe could examine H.D.W.’s anus and genital area, but H.D.W. refused. Because H.D.W. said\\nthat he was not currently in pain, Dr. Judy did not press him any further. Dr. Judy then ordered\\nurine testing to rule out the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).\\n\\n The day after H.D.W.’s hospital visit, Ruleau conducted a second forensic interview,\\nduring which H.D.W. disclosed that Wandahsega had sexually abused him. H.D.W.’s disclosure\\nwas consistent with what he had told Gudwer and Maycroft. That same day, FBI Special Agent\\nJohn Fortunato and a local detective, Justin Hansen, went to Wandahsega’s apartment to\\ninterview him, but they ended the interview early because Wandahsega appeared to be under the\\ninfluence of drugs or alcohol. They returned the next day and conducted a recorded interview\\nwith Wandahsega. He denied touching his son, but also said that he sometimes blacks out from\\ndrinking and therefore did not know what, if anything, he might have done to H.D.W.\\n\\n Wandahsega consented to a search of his apartment and to the seizure of bed sheets, three\\npairs of H.D.W.’s underwear, and a blanket from Wandahsega’s bedroom, where H.D.W. usually\\nslept. He also consented to providing a DNA sample by cheek swab. The Michigan State Police\\nForensic Laboratory subsequently found saliva on the inside rear portion of a pair of H.D.W.’s\\nunderwear, and testing established that the saliva contained a mixture of both H.D.W.’s and\\nWandahsega’s DNA.\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 4\\n\\n\\nB. Procedural background\\n\\n A federal grand jury proceeded to indict Wandahsega. He was charged with aggravated\\nabuse of a child under twelve-years old, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c), and with abusive\\nsexual contact with a child under twelve-years old, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5).\\n\\n 1. Pretrial motions\\n\\n Prior to trial, the government filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(b)(1) to let H.D.W.\\ntestify through CCTV. A magistrate judge held a hearing and heard testimony from a social\\nworker about whether H.D.W. would be able to testify in front of his father. H.D.W. also\\ntestified at the hearing and said that he would be scared to testify with Wandahsega present.\\nAfter the hearing, the magistrate judge concluded (1) that H.D.W. would be unable to testify in\\nfront of his father because of fear, and (2) that there was a substantial likelihood that H.D.W.\\nwould suffer emotional trauma if forced to do so. Accordingly, the magistrate judge\\nrecommended granting the government’s motion and allowing H.D.W. to testify at trial via two-\\nway CCTV. Wandahsega did not object to the Report and Recommendation, which the district\\ncourt adopted.\\n\\n The government filed two additional motions in limine. First, it filed a motion for the\\nadmission of H.D.W.’s statements to Nurse Smith and Dr. Judy at the emergency room. The\\ngovernment based its request on Rule 803(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides\\nan exception to the rule against hearsay for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment.\\nSecond, it filed a motion for the admission of H.D.W.’s statements to Gudwer and Maycroft\\nunder Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the residual hearsay exception. That motion\\nalso sought the admission of a video recording of Ruleau’s second interview with H.D.W.\\nWandahsega opposed both motions. The magistrate judge ultimately recommended that the\\nevidentiary issues be dealt with at trial after H.D.W.’s testimony and after the initial testimony of\\nNurse Smith and Dr. Judy. After review, the district court adopted the Report and\\nRecommendation.\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 5\\n\\n\\n 2. The trial\\n\\n As its first witness, the government called H.D.W. H.D.W. was questioned in a room\\nseparate from the jury and Wandahsega, and his testimony was transmitted to the jury by CCTV.\\nHe testified that he no longer lives with his father because Wandahsega “did something bad to\\n[him]” while he was “in [his] bedroom” in Wandahsega’s apartment. H.D.W. said that\\nWandahsega touched H.D.W.’s privates—where he “poop[s] and pee[s]”—more than one time\\nand that H.D.W. was telling the truth when he spoke to Nurse Smith, Dr. Judy, and Ruleau.\\nFinally, H.D.W. testified that he preferred living with his grandparents to living with his father,\\nand that he was upset with his father for drinking.\\n\\n The district court then addressed several outstanding evidentiary issues outside the\\npresence of the jury, including the motions in limine that the magistrate judge had not resolved.\\nFirst, the court addressed the admission of H.D.W.’s hearsay statements to Gudwer about his\\nfather doing “PK” with him like his father and his father’s girlfriend did. Applying the four-part\\ntest delineated by Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court found that H.D.W.’s\\nstatements to Gudwer were admissible because they were spontaneous and therefore reliable.\\nGudwer then testified about her exchange with H.D.W. and what she did in response.\\n\\n The district court next addressed the admission of H.D.W.’s hearsay statements to\\nMaycroft when she picked him up from Wandahsega’s apartment to decorate a Christmas tree.\\nBecause H.D.W.’s initial statement to Maycroft that his father was doing bad things to him was\\nspontaneous, the court found it to be reliable and therefore admissible under Rule 807. But the\\ncourt found that H.D.W.’s responses to Maycroft’s follow-up questions were inadmissible\\nhearsay that did not fall under Rule 807’s exception. Maycroft’s testimony was therefore limited\\nto H.D.W.’s initial spontaneous statement to her and what she did in response to H.D.W.’s\\nstatement.\\n\\n The district court then addressed the statements that H.D.W. made to Nurse Smith and\\nDr. Judy at the hospital with the government assuring the court that those witnesses would testify\\nthat their questions to H.D.W. were pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment. After\\nreviewing the relevant caselaw, the court held that Nurse Smith’s and Dr. Judy’s testimony about\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 6\\n\\n\\nH.D.W.’s statements at the hospital would be admissible under Rule 803(4) if a proper\\nfoundation was laid. Nurse Smith and Dr. Judy proceeded to testify about their exchanges with\\nH.D.W. at the hospital.\\n\\n Finally, the district court addressed the recording of H.D.W.’s second forensic interview\\nwith Ruleau. The court found that the interview did not contain the same indicia of reliability as\\nH.D.W.’s statements to Gudwer and Maycroft, so it concluded that the interview was\\ninadmissible hearsay. Ruleau, however, later testified in a general manner that H.D.W. disclosed\\nabuse during that interview, and that what H.D.W. told her was consistent with what he had\\npreviously told Gudwer and Maycroft.\\n\\n An additional evidentiary issue arose on the second day of trial. Wandahsega sought to\\nshow the jury a video of a supervised visit between H.D.W. and Wandahsega that occurred\\nseveral months after H.D.W.’s allegations. In that video, H.D.W. interacted well with his father\\nand hugged him. The district court concluded that the video did not fall under any exception to\\nthe rule against hearsay and that it was therefore inadmissible. Although the video itself was not\\nadmitted, Ruleau, who supervised the visit, testified about the visit and confirmed that H.D.W.\\nand Wandahsega hugged and got along well.\\n\\n The remainder of the government’s fact witnesses were law-enforcement officers.\\nSpecial Agent Fortunato and Detective Hansen testified about their interview of Wandahsega and\\nthe collection of evidence from Wandahsega’s apartment. In response to a question about\\nwhether he was aware of Wandahsega’s drinking problem before he arrived at Wandahsega’s\\napartment, Fortunato commented about a “prior incident where [Wandahsega] had passed out\\nand he had engaged in a homosexual act.” Officer Gregory Kurtz, the Hannahville officer who\\nreceived Gudwer’s initial complaint against Wandahsega, also testified briefly about his\\nconversation with Gudwer and the events that resulted from that call.\\n\\n The government next presented several expert witnesses. They included forensic\\nscientists at the Michigan State Police forensic laboratory, who explained the results of the fluid\\nand DNA testing done on H.D.W.’s underwear. A child-adolescent forensic interviewer with the\\nFBI testified about the legitimacy of the techniques used in Ruleau’s interviews of H.D.W.\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 7\\n\\n\\nFinally, a toxicology expert testified about blackouts, alcohol’s effect on short-term memory, and\\na person’s ability to complete certain tasks while intoxicated.\\n\\n Near the end of the government’s case, Wandahsega moved for a mistrial based on\\nFortunato’s statement about Wandahsega passing out and engaging in a homosexual act.\\nWandahsega argued that Fortunato had made the statement to prejudice the jury. The district\\ncourt ruled that Fortunato’s statement was responsive to the question that Wandahsega’s counsel\\nhad asked, but gave counsel the opportunity to stipulate to striking the statement from the record.\\nWhen the parties did not stipulate to striking the statement, the court denied the motion for a\\nmistrial. Wandahsega also moved for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the government’s\\ncase, which the court denied.\\n\\n At trial, Wandahsega did not testify or call any witnesses. After four days of trial, the\\njury convicted Wandahsega of abusive sexual contact under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5), but\\nacquitted him of aggravated abuse of a child under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c).\\n\\n 3. Sentencing\\n\\n The United States Probation Office prepared and filed a Presentence Report (PSR) prior\\nto Wandahsega’s sentencing. Section 2A3.4(c)(1) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines\\nprovides that if an offense involves “criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual\\nabuse,” then the sentencing court should apply § 2A3.1 of the Guidelines. The PSR therefore\\nrecommended applying § 2A3.1 to calculate Wandahsega’s offense level because his conduct\\ninvolved criminal sexual abuse. Applying § 2A3.1, the PSR recommended an offense level of\\n36. The PSR also recommended applying a five-level enhancement for engaging in a pattern of\\nprohibited sexual conduct under § 4B1.5(b)(1) of the Guidelines, resulting in an offense level of\\n41.\\n\\n Wandahsega objected to the PSR’s Guidelines calculation and reiterated his objections at\\nhis sentencing hearing. Both parties presented evidence to the district court, after which the\\ncourt made factual findings and overruled Wandahsega’s objections. The court agreed with the\\nPSR’s recommendations of an offense level of 41 and determined that the advisory Guideline\\nrange was 360 months to life imprisonment. But the court granted Wandahsega’s request for a\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 8\\n\\n\\nfour-level downward variance because it concluded that a sentence within the Guideline range\\nwas “greater than necessary” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, Wandahsega’s offense\\nlevel dropped from 41 to 37, and the final advisory Guideline range was 235 to 293 months’\\nimprisonment. The court imposed a sentence of 288 months. Wandahsega filed a notice of\\nappeal on the same day that the court entered its judgment.\\n\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n\\nA. Standards of review\\n\\n The issues in the present case involve multiple standards of review. As a general matter,\\nwe review the district court’s factual findings under the clear-error standard. United States\\nv. Katzopoulos, 437 F.3d 569, 574 (6th Cir. 2006). “[L]egal conclusions are reviewed de novo.”\\nUnited States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 473, 476 (6th Cir. 1999).\\n\\n Evidentiary rulings are reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard. United States\\nv. Phibbs, 999 F.2d 1053, 1078 (6th Cir. 1993). The abuse-of-discretion standard also applies to\\nthe district court’s decision not to grant Wandahsega’s motion for a mistrial, see United States\\nv. Forrest, 17 F.3d 916, 919 (6th Cir. 1994), and to the reasonableness of Wandahsega’s\\nsentence, see United States v. Studabaker, 578 F.3d 423, 430 (6th Cir. 2009).\\n\\nB. H.D.W.’s testimony through CCTV\\n\\n The district court allowed H.D.W. to testify through CCTV after the magistrate judge\\nheld a hearing and issued a Report and Recommendation on the issue. Wandahsega argues that\\nthe court erred in allowing H.D.W. to testify outside of the courtroom because (1) the magistrate\\njudge’s factual finding that H.D.W. was “unable to testify because of fear” and that there was “a\\nsubstantial likelihood, established by expert testimony, that the child would suffer emotional\\ntrauma from testifying,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3509(b)(1)(B), constituted clear error, and (2) the\\nCCTV testimony violated Wandahsega’s constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against\\nhim and to the due process of law.\\n\\n In response, the government points out that Wandahsega failed to object to the magistrate\\njudge’s Report and Recommendation. It also contends that the magistrate judge’s factual\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 9\\n\\n\\nfindings did not constitute clear error and that H.D.W.’s testimony did not violate Wandahsega’s\\nconstitutional rights.\\n\\n In this circuit, the failure to object to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation\\nresults in a waiver of appeal on that issue as long as the magistrate judge informs the parties of\\nthe potential waiver. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981); see also\\nThomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (holding that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver rule is within\\nits supervisory powers). This court may, however, “decline to apply the waiver rule where the\\ndistrict court’s error is so egregious that failure to permit appellate review would work a\\nmiscarriage of justice.” United States v. 1184 Drycreek Rd., 174 F.3d 720, 726 (6th Cir. 1999);\\nsee also Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155 (“[B]ecause the [Walters] rule is a nonjurisdictional waiver\\nprovision, the Court of Appeals may excuse the default in the interest of justice.”).\\n\\n Wandahsega does not dispute that he failed to object to the magistrate judge’s Report and\\nRecommendation regarding H.D.W.’s CCTV testimony. Nor does he dispute that the Report and\\nRecommendation included an explicit notice to the parties that objections “must be served on\\nopposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this\\nReport and Recommendation,” and that “[f]ailure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of\\nany further right to appeal.” Rather, Wandahsega argues that not excusing the default would\\nresult in a miscarriage of justice because utilizing CCTV “violates the Sixth Amendment in\\neviscerating the bedrock guarantee of confrontation.”\\n\\n Wandahsega has not provided a sufficient reason for us to excuse his waiver in the\\ninterest of justice. The fact that his constitutional rights are at issue does not in and of itself\\nmake our decision to decline to entertain his waived arguments a miscarriage of justice. See,\\ne.g., United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that a challenge to a\\ndenial of a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress was waived for failure to object to the Report\\nand Recommendation); Trzebuckowski v. City of Cleveland, 319 F.3d 853, 855 (6th Cir. 2003)\\n(holding that a challenge to a dismissal of a due-process claim was waived for failure to object to\\nthe Report and Recommendation).\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 10\\n\\n\\n Moreover, even if Wandahsega were allowed to contest the district court’s decision to let\\nH.D.W. testify by CCTV, each of his arguments would fail. The magistrate judge’s factual\\nfindings that (1) H.D.W. was unable to testify in front of his father because of fear, and (2) there\\nwas a substantial likelihood that he would suffer emotional trauma from testifying in front of his\\nfather, were not clearly erroneous. H.D.W. told both the magistrate judge and the government’s\\nexpert witness that he would be scared to testify in front of his father. And the expert witness,\\nwho had extensive experience in assessing trauma in children who have been sexually abused,\\nformed an individualized opinion that H.D.W. would suffer trauma if he had to testify in front of\\nWandahsega.\\n\\n Finally, Wandahsega contends that H.D.W.’s CCTV testimony violated Wandahsega’s\\nconstitutional rights to confront the witnesses against him and to due process. But the Supreme\\nCourt held in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), that such CCTV testimony is\\nconstitutional as long as the government “makes an adequate showing of necessity.” Id. at 855.\\nIn response to Craig, Congress passed 18 U.S.C. § 3509, which codifies Craig’s requirement\\nthat the trial court “hear evidence and determine whether use of [CCTV] is necessary to protect\\nthe welfare of the particular child witness who seeks to testify” and whether “the child witness\\nwould be traumatized . . . by the presence of the defendant.” Id. at 855–56.\\n\\n Although various courts and scholars have struggled to reconcile Craig with the Court’s\\nsubsequent holding in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (ruling that the\\nConfrontation Clause prohibits the admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless the\\nwitness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination),\\nCrawford did not overturn Craig. See United States v. Cox, 871 F.3d 479, 492 (6th Cir. 2017)\\n(Sutton, J., concurring) (“Crawford did not overturn Craig. And Craig governs us here, as junior\\ncourts may not overrule the handiwork of their superiors.”). We are therefore bound by Craig,\\nand because the district court’s decision to allow H.D.W. to testify by CCTV complied with the\\nrequirements of Craig and § 3509, Wandahsega’s constitutional argument fails.\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 11\\n\\n\\nC. Hearsay testimony of Dr. Judy and Nurse Smith\\n\\n Wandahsega next challenges numerous evidentiary rulings made during his trial. First,\\nhe challenges as hearsay the admission of Dr. Judy’s and Nurse Smith’s testimony, in which they\\ndiscussed what H.D.W. told them at the hospital. The district court allowed both witnesses to\\ntestify about what H.D.W. told them under the “statement made for medical diagnosis or\\ntreatment” exception to the rule against hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(4).\\n\\n Rule 803(4) provides that a hearsay statement that “(A) is made for—and is reasonably\\npertinent to—medical diagnosis or treatment; and (B) describes medical history; past or present\\nsymptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause” is “not excluded by the rule\\nagainst hearsay.” Wandahsega contends that the district court abused its discretion in admitting\\nthe testimony of Dr. Judy and Nurse Smith regarding H.D.W.’s statements to them because\\nMaycroft, according to Wandahsega, took H.D.W. to the hospital for investigatory purposes\\nrather than for medical treatment.\\n\\n The record does not support Wandahsega’s contention. Nurse Smith testified at trial that,\\nin response to her question to H.D.W. about why he was at the emergency room, H.D.W. told her\\nthat “[his] dad did something bad to [him] twice.” That statement is hearsay, but Nurse Smith\\nexplained that asking patients “what brings them [to the emergency room] to be seen” is an\\nimportant part of the triage process “[b]ecause it helps [the staff] determine what type of needs\\nthey need medically, physically, mentally, and how fast they go in the back to be evaluated by a\\nphysician.” She also testified that when someone arrives at the emergency room and says that\\nthey have been sexually assaulted, the identity of the perpetrator is important because it would\\naffect their diagnosis and treatment in terms of mental-health or emotional-health concerns.\\n\\n The record reflects that Nurse Smith “undertook her interviews for the primary purpose\\nof medical diagnosis, rather than for some other purpose, such as determining whether to notify\\nstate authorities of suspected abuse . . . ; deciding whether a protective order was necessary to\\nensure the [child’s] safety, . . . ; or obtaining evidence.” See United States v. Kappell, 418 F.3d\\n550, 556–57 (6th Cir. 2005). Nurse Smith never indicated that she was speaking with H.D.W.\\nfor any purpose other than to determine how to proceed with his medical treatment. The district\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 12\\n\\n\\ncourt therefore did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the government had laid a proper\\nfoundation for Nurse Smith’s testimony and that her testimony was admissible under Rule\\n803(4).\\n\\n Next, Dr. Judy testified that H.D.W. related that his father “had touched him\\ninappropriately, touched his penis and put his finger up his rectum on occasion.” Dr. Judy then\\ndecided that he needed to determine whether H.D.W. had suffered any physical injuries from the\\nassault or contracted any STDs. Wandahsega argues that because Dr. Judy never physically\\nexamined H.D.W., the latter’s statements to Dr. Judy were not made for medical diagnosis or\\ntreatment. But Dr. Judy explained that he sought H.D.W.’s consent to be examined, and that\\nH.D.W. refused. Because H.D.W. said that he was not currently in pain, Dr. Judy did not press\\nhim any further.\\n\\n The record supports the district court’s conclusion that Dr. Judy’s conversation with\\nH.D.W. was for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. Although Dr. Judy never\\nexamined H.D.W., he asked questions to determine the urgency of a physical examination and\\nultimately concluded that making H.D.W. uncomfortable was unnecessary. Dr. Judy also\\nordered STD tests based on the information that H.D.W. had given him. The fact that a police\\nofficer accompanied Maycroft and H.D.W. to the emergency room does not change the nature of\\nDr. Judy’s questions. In fact, Dr. Judy never indicated that he spoke with the police officer about\\nH.D.W.’s statements.\\n\\n Wandahsega nevertheless argues that, in order for the hearsay statements of a “very\\nyoung declarant” to be admissible under Rule 803(4), the child must display the “selfish\\nsubjective motive” necessary to establish the reliability of his statements to medical personnel.\\nIn other words, Wandahsega argues that the record must demonstrate that the child understood\\nthat he or she was speaking with medical personnel for the purpose of medical treatment. He\\ncites United States v. Turning Bear, 357 F.3d 730, 738 (8th Cir. 2004), for this proposition. The\\ndistrict court directly addressed Wandahsega’s argument, concluding that the Eighth Circuit\\nprecedent does not control because, in Kappell, the Sixth Circuit “clearly [did] not adopt that\\nprong of the Eighth Circuit opinion.”\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 13\\n\\n\\n In Kappell, this court affirmed the admission of children’s statements to a\\npsychotherapist and a social worker without analyzing whether the children understood the\\nmedical context of the interaction. Kappell, 418 F.3d at 557. The district court therefore\\ncorrectly concluded that Turning Bear is not persuasive authority. And even if Turning Bear\\nwere deemed applicable to the present case, which it is not, Nurse Smith and Dr. Judy both\\ntestified that they were wearing scrubs and nametags while speaking with H.D.W. Dr. Judy\\nexplained to H.D.W. that he was a physician and asked if he could perform a physical exam.\\nNurse Smith explained that she was a nurse. These circumstances support the proposition that\\nH.D.W. understood that he should tell the truth because he was at the hospital speaking with\\nmedical personnel for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment. We therefore conclude\\nthat the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the hearsay testimony of Dr. Judy and\\nNurse Smith.\\n\\nD. Hearsay testimony of Gudwer and Maycroft\\n\\n Wandahsega’s second evidentiary challenge is to the admission of testimony from\\nGudwer and Maycroft that included hearsay statements from H.D.W. accusing his father of\\nsexual abuse. The district court ultimately admitted the hearsay statements under Rule 807(a) of\\nthe Federal Rules of Evidence, the “residual exception” to the rule against hearsay.\\n\\n Rule 807(a) provides that\\n\\n [u]nder the following circumstances, a hearsay statement is not excluded by the\\n rule against hearsay even if the statement is not specifically covered by a hearsay\\n exception in Rule 803 or 804: (1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial\\n guarantees of trustworthiness; (2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact; (3) it\\n is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that\\n the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and (4) admitting it will best\\n serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.\\n\\nRegarding the first factor of Rule 807(a)’s four-part test, Wandahsega’s brief highlights\\nreliability issues when children are interviewed about potential abuse, including potential\\ninaccuracies due to suggestive questioning techniques and children’s general motivation to\\nplease their interviewers.\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 14\\n\\n\\n The Supreme Court listed the following factors as particularized guarantees of\\ntrustworthiness in the context of child sexual abuse: “(1) spontaneity; (2) consistent repetition;\\n(3) the mental state of the declarant; (4) the use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar\\nage; and (5) the lack of a motive to fabricate.” Stuart v. Wilson, 442 F.3d 506, 522 (6th Cir.\\n2006) (citing Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821–22 (1990)). As the district court explained\\nduring its application of Rule 807(a) at trial, H.D.W.’s statements to Gudwer and Maycroft were\\nreliable because they were not made in an interview setting. During the course of a normal\\nconversation with Gudwer, H.D.W. stated that he and his father “did PK.” That statement was\\nboth spontaneous and used terminology (“doing PK”) unexpected of a child of a similar age.\\nAnd each of Gudwer’s follow-up questions—“What is PK?” and “What do you mean?”—were\\nnonleading. See id. at 523 (stating that questions that “were not leading or suggestive” are more\\nlikely to be trustworthy).\\n\\n Similarly, when H.D.W. told Maycroft that his father was doing bad things to him, he had\\njust run up to greet her after she arrived at his home. As the district court concluded, such a\\n“spontaneous statement . . . has some equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.”\\nThe court also limited Gudwer’s testimony to that spontaneous statement, and did not allow her\\nto testify about H.D.W.’s answers to her follow-up questions. The spontaneity of H.D.W.’s\\nstatements, in tandem with the fact that H.D.W. consistently repeated his accusations to Gudwer,\\nNurse Smith, Dr. Judy, Ruleau, and the jury, support the proposition that H.D.W.’s initial\\nstatement to Maycroft was also trustworthy under the first part of Rule 807(a)’s test. See id. at\\n522 (listing consistent repetition as a particularized guarantee of trustworthiness).\\n\\n Wandahsega, however, argues that the testimony of Gudwer and Maycroft was not\\ntrustworthy under the first prong of Rule 807’s test because both witnesses dislike Wandahsega\\nand therefore had a reason to cast him in a negative light. But Wandahsega’s counsel had the\\nopportunity to cross-examine both Gudwer and Maycroft about their respective relationships\\nwith Wandahsega, and the jury had the opportunity to evaluate their credibility.\\n\\n Wandahsega next contends that the third prong of Rule 807(a)’s test was not met.\\nBecause H.D.W. himself testified at trial, Wandahsega argues that H.D.W.’s hearsay statements\\nto Gudwer and Maycroft were not the most probative evidence available as to whether\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 15\\n\\n\\nWandahsega abused him. But H.D.W.’s statements to Gudwer and Maycroft are more probative\\nregarding Wandahsega’s conduct than H.D.W.’s testimony alone. At trial, the only detail that\\nH.D.W. was able to provide about the alleged abuse was that Wandahsega had touched his\\nprivates more than one time. He said that he did not remember when the alleged abuse had\\nhappened, but when he spoke to Gudwer he told her that it had happened “a couple of nights\\nago.” Gudwer’s testimony therefore filled in details of H.D.W.’s testimony that were highly\\nprobative.\\n\\n Regarding H.D.W.’s statement to Maycroft, she was the person who took H.D.W. to the\\nhospital. Her testimony about those events would have been disjointed and incomplete if she had\\nnot been able to explain that H.D.W. first told her that his father had done something bad to him.\\nAnd the district court was careful to “draw the line” at H.D.W.’s first statement to Maycroft,\\nexcluding any statements that did not “really advance the ball too much” in terms of\\nprobativeness. In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting H.D.W.’s\\nhearsay statements to Gudwer and Maycroft under the residual hearsay exception.\\n\\nE. Video of H.D.W.’s supervised visit with Wandahsega\\n\\n Wandahsega’s third evidentiary challenge is to the district court’s decision to deny\\nWandahsega the opportunity to present to the jury a video of a supervised visit between H.D.W.\\nand Wandahsega. In the video, H.D.W. and Wandahsega had a visit at the Hannahville CPS\\nOffice while the present case was under investigation, and H.D.W. hugged and interacted well\\nwith Wandahsega. Wandahsega sought to admit the video to demonstrate that H.D.W. was not\\nafraid of his father. The district court concluded that the video did not fall under any exception\\nto the rule against hearsay, but it allowed Wandahsega’s counsel to cross-examine Ruleau, who\\nsupervised the visit, about what happened. Ruleau testified that, during the visit, H.D.W. and\\nWandahsega hugged and got along well for 30 or 40 minutes.\\n\\n Wandahsega contends that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing the\\nvideo to be played for the jury because Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that\\n“[i]f a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may\\nrequire the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 16\\n\\n\\nstatement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.” But the government did\\nnot introduce any portion of the video in question, making Rule 106 inapplicable. Rule 106,\\nfurthermore, does not transform inadmissible hearsay into admissible evidence. United States\\nv. Costner, 684 F.2d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 1982) (“Rule 106 is intended to eliminate the misleading\\nimpression created by taking a statement out of context . . . ; it is not designed to make\\nsomething admissible that should be excluded.”). Because the video falls under no exception to\\nthe rule against hearsay, Rule 106 provides no help to Wandahsega.\\n\\n Wandahsega also argues that the video should have been admitted under Rule 807(a), the\\nresidual hearsay exception. But Wandahsega failed to establish, either at trial or in his brief, that\\nthe video met the four requirements of Rule 807(a): that the statement (1) has “circumstantial\\nguarantees of trustworthiness;” (2) “is offered as evidence of a material fact;” (3) “is more\\nprobative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence; and (4) “will serve the\\npurposes of the rules of evidence and the interests of justice.” Specifically, Wandahsega failed\\nto explain why Ruleau’s testimony about the visit was less probative than the video. The district\\ncourt therefore did not abuse its discretion in excluding the video of H.D.W.’s supervised visit\\nwith Wandahsega.\\n\\nF. Wandahsega’s motion for a mistrial\\n\\n Wandahsega next argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his\\nmotion for a mistrial after Special Agent Fortunato, one of the officers who interviewed\\nWandahsega the day after H.D.W.’s hospital visit, testified that he “knew about a prior incident\\nwhere [Wandahsega] had passed out and . . . engaged in a homosexual act.” Fortunato’s\\ntestimony was in response to the following question from Wandahsega’s counsel: “And you\\nwere aware, were you not, before you even went [to Wandahsega’s home] that he had a\\nsignificant drinking problem?”\\n\\n Wandahsega argued at trial that Fortunato’s testimony was not responsive to the question\\nand was meant to prejudice the jury against Wandahsega. He therefore moved for a mistrial\\nbased on “prosecutorial misconduct on the part of the agent.” The court denied the motion\\nbecause it concluded that Fortunato’s testimony was responsive to the question that\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 17\\n\\n\\nWandahsega’s counsel had asked him. Wandahsega’s counsel did not move to strike the\\nstatement from the record or attempt to reach an agreement with the government to do so.\\n\\n On appeal, Wandahsega contends that Fortunato’s testimony violated his due-process\\nright to a fair trial and that Fortunato’s testimony “may have been injected intentionally to\\nprejudice Mr. Wandahsega.” This court has adopted a two-step approach for determining when\\nprosecutorial misconduct warrants a new trial. First, we must “consider whether the prosecutor’s\\nconduct and remarks were improper.” United States v. Carter, 236 F.3d 777, 783 (6th Cir.\\n2001). If the conduct was improper, “the court must then consider and weigh four factors in\\ndetermining whether the impropriety was flagrant and thus warrants reversal[:] . . . (1) whether\\nthe conduct and remarks of the prosecutor tended to mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant;\\n(2) whether the conduct or remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) whether the remarks were\\ndeliberately or accidentally made; and (4) whether the evidence against the defendant was\\nstrong.” Id.\\n\\n Wandahsega has the better argument on the first step of this analysis. The question was\\nwhether Fortunato was aware of Wandahsega’s drinking problem, and the response about\\nWandahsega engaging in a homosexual act was not responsive to that question. But even\\nassuming that Fortunato’s testimony was improper and prejudicial, the balance of the remaining\\nfactors weighs against a mistrial. The remark was isolated and not extensive. Fortunato did not\\nexpound upon the alleged homosexual act, even when asked to do so on recross examination by\\nWandahsega’s counsel, and no other witness discussed Wandahsega’s sexual orientation after\\nFortunato’s testimony.\\n\\n In addition, the remainder of the evidence against Wandahsega was strong. Five\\nwitnesses testified that H.D.W. told them about the sexual abuse, and H.D.W. himself testified\\nabout that abuse. In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wandahsega’s\\nmotion for a mistrial.\\n\\nG. Sufficiency of the evidence\\n\\n Wandahsega’s final evidentiary challenge relates to the proof supporting his conviction\\nfor abusive sexual conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5). He points to various alleged\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 18\\n\\n\\ndeficiencies: (1) the possibility that the DNA evidence found on H.D.W.’s underwear was\\ncontaminated when it was transferred by the police or in the wash; (2) the reliability of child\\nwitnesses; (3) the witnesses’ “controversial relationships” with Wandahsega; (4) a lack of\\ntestimony that Wandahsega engaged in sexual contact with H.D.W., as opposed to generally\\ndoing “something bad” to him; and (5) a lack of evidence surrounding Wandahsega’s specific\\nintent to engage in sexual activity with H.D.W. Wandahsega moved for a judgment of acquittal\\nunder Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure at trial, which the district court denied.\\n\\n “[W]hen the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the standard of review is\\n‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational\\ntrier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’”\\nUnited States v. Swidan, 888 F.2d 1076, 1080 (6th Cir. 1989) (emphasis in original) (quoting\\nJackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). The elements of abusive sexual contact under\\n18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5) are: (1) knowingly engaging in sexual contact with another person; (2) at\\nthe time of the sexual contact, the other person had not yet reached the age of twelve years; and\\n(3) the sexual contact occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. By\\nstipulation, the parties agreed that the only element at issue was whether Wandahsega had\\nengaged in sexual contact with H.D.W. “[T]he term ‘sexual contact’ means the intentional\\ntouching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh,\\nor buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify\\nthe sexual desire of any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 2246(3)\\n\\n Even without the DNA evidence or H.D.W.’s direct testimony, the government produced\\nsufficient evidence to allow a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that\\nWandahsega knowingly engaged in sexual contact with H.D.W. Gudwer testified that when she\\nspoke with H.D.W. about “PK,” he looked down and pointed to his groin area and said, “just like\\ndad and his girlfriend do.” And Dr. Judy testified that H.D.W. told Dr. Judy that his (H.D.W.’s)\\ndad “had touched him inappropriately, touched his penis and put his finger up his rectum on\\noccasion.”\\n\\n Regarding Gudwer’s, Maycroft’s, and H.D.W.’s “controversial relationships” with\\nWandahsega, all were cross-examined about any alleged bias against him. Ultimately, the jury\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 19\\n\\n\\nbelieved their testimony, and “[a]ll reasonable inferences and resolutions of credibility are made\\nin the jury’s favor.” See United States v. Washington, 702 F.3d 886, 891 (6th Cir. 2012). The\\nfact that Gudwer, Maycroft, and H.D.W. might have been biased against Wandahsega does not\\nrender their testimony insufficient for a conviction. See United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394,\\n414–15 (1980) (“It is for [jurors] and not for appellate courts, to say that a particular witness\\nspoke the truth or fabricated a cock-and-bull story.”). The jury was entitled to credit their\\ntestimony, which was wholly consistent with the rest of the evidence presented at trial.\\n\\n Finally, Wandahsega contends that the government failed to prove that Wandahsega\\nknew that he was engaging in sexual conduct with H.D.W. because, if he did engage in such\\nconduct, it could have occurred during an alcohol-related blackout. But as the government’s\\nexpert witness testified, “you are up on your feet, you’re moving, you’re doing actions, but you\\nare not recording those memories” during a blackout. This is in contrast to “passing out,” when\\none is “unconscious” and in “a comatose state.” Blackouts accordingly affect one’s ability to\\nstore and retrieve memories of events that occurred during the blackout but, according to the\\ngovernment’s expert witness, do not affect one’s ability to complete intentional acts or to\\ndifferentiate right from wrong. The jury therefore had sufficient evidence to rationally conclude\\nthat Wandahsega knew that he was engaging in sexual conduct with H.D.W., even if he had been\\nblacked out at the time. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Wandahsega’s\\nmotion for a judgment of acquittal.\\n\\nH. Wandahsega’s sentence\\n\\n We now turn to Wandahsega’s challenges to his sentence. He makes three challenges to\\nthe procedural reasonableness of his sentence, and one challenge to its substantive\\nreasonableness.\\n\\n A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court “(1) properly calculated the\\napplicable advisory Guidelines range; (2) considered the other [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors as\\nwell as the parties’ arguments for a sentence outside the Guidelines range; and (3) adequately\\narticulated its reasoning for imposing the particular sentence chosen, including any rejection of\\nthe parties’ arguments for an outside-Guidelines sentence and any decision to deviate from the\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 20\\n\\n\\nadvisory Guidelines range.” United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 581 (6th Cir. 2007). If the\\ncourt’s sentence was procedurally sound, then we “consider the sentence’s substantive\\nreasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the\\ncircumstances, including the extent of a variance from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United\\nStates, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). For sentences within the Guidelines range, we “may, but [are]\\nnot required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness.” Id.\\n\\n 1. Enhancement for a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct\\n\\n Wandahsega first argues that his sentence is procedurally flawed because enhancing his\\noffense level under § 4B1.5(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines was not supported by a\\npreponderance of the evidence. Section 4B1.5(b)(1) provides for a five-level enhancement when\\n“the defendant’s instant offense of conviction is a covered sex crime . . . and the defendant\\nengaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” A defendant engages “in a\\npattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct if[,] on at least two separate occasions, the\\ndefendant engaged in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines\\nManual § 4B1.5 cmt. n.4(B)(i).\\n\\n Wandahsega argues that the evidence does not support a finding of at least two separate\\noccasions of prohibited sexual conduct with H.D.W., and further argues that the district court\\nerred in counting as one occasion the very conduct underlying the crime of conviction. Counting\\nthe conduct underlying the crime of conviction as one instance of conduct supporting the\\napplication of § 4B1.5, he argues, amounts to impermissible “double counting” because\\nWandahsega’s base offense level already accounts for the offense of conviction.\\n\\n But according to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary to § 4B1.5, “[a]n occasion of\\nprohibited sexual conduct may be considered . . . without regard to whether the occasion\\noccurred . . . during the course of the instant offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual\\n§ 4B1.5 cmt. n.4(B)(ii). Binding caselaw also supports the proposition that the two required\\noccasions of prohibited sexual conduct for § 4B1.5(b)(1)’s enhancement may include the instant\\noffense of conviction. See United States v. Al-Cholan, 610 F.3d 945, 954 n.4 (6th Cir. 2010)\\n(“These two separate occasions [for § 4B1.5(b)(1)’s enhancement] may include the instant\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 21\\n\\n\\noffense, and prior occasions need not have resulted in a conviction to qualify.” (internal\\nquotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 285 (2d Cir.\\n2012) (“[The defendant’s] conviction on Count Three clearly provides one of the two occasions\\nof prohibited sexual conduct necessary to establish a pattern of activity.”). Wandahsega has\\ncited no contrary authority, aside from the dissent in Broxmeyer. The district court therefore did\\nnot err in counting the conduct underlying Wandahsega’s conviction for the purposes of applying\\n§ 4B1.5(b)(1).\\n\\n Wandahsega also argues that a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding\\nof a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct. At trial, however, H.D.W. testified\\nthat his father had touched his genitals more than one time on different days. Dr. Judy further\\ntestified that H.D.W. said that Wandahsega had touched him on two separate occasions a number\\nof days before going to the hospital. And during H.D.W.’s second forensic interview with\\nRuleau, which was not admitted at trial but was presented at the sentencing hearing, H.D.W.\\nreaffirmed that his father had touched him multiple times. The district court’s factual finding\\nthat Wandahsega had engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct with H.D.W. was\\ntherefore not clearly erroneous.\\n\\n 2. Enhancement based on acquitted conduct\\n\\n In his second procedural challenge to his sentence, Wandahsega contends that the district\\ncourt erred in using conduct for which he was acquitted (aggravated sexual abuse) to enhance his\\nsentence under § 2A3.4(c)(1) of the Guidelines. Section 2A3.4(c)(1) of the Guidelines provides\\nthat if an offense involves “criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual abuse,”\\nthen the sentencing court should apply § 2A3.1 of the Guidelines. Section 2A3.1, which\\naddresses sentencing for criminal sexual abuse, provides for a base offense level of 30, whereas\\n§ 2A3.4, which addresses sentencing for abusive sexual contact, provides for a base offense level\\nof 20. Sexual abuse consists of, among other things, “knowingly . . . engag[ing] in a sexual act\\nwith another person if that other person is . . . incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct.”\\n18 U.S.C. § 2242(2)(A). Criminal sexual abuse involves a sexual act rather than sexual contact.\\nSee 18 U.S.C. § 2242. A sexual act is defined as:\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 22\\n\\n\\n (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for\\n purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon\\n penetration, however slight;\\n (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the\\n mouth and the anus;\\n (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by a\\n hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,\\n degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or\\n (D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another\\n person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse,\\n humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any\\n person.\\n\\nId. § 2246(2).\\n\\n The district court applied § 2A3.1 to calculate Wandahsega’s offense level because he\\nwas charged with aggravated sexual abuse in addition to abusive sexual contact. It concluded\\nthat, although Wandahsega had been acquitted of aggravated sexual abuse, the government had\\nproven by a preponderance of the evidence that Wandahsega had committed such abuse. The\\ncourt based this conclusion on H.D.W.’s testimony and his statements to other witnesses:\\n\\n At one point he describe[d] the act that [Wandahsega] was perpetrating on him to\\n the point where it caused pain. That’s in the context of a discussion about his butt\\n hole being hurt. He also talk[ed] about contact with his, where his pee comes out\\n and where his poop comes out. And he described [Wandahsega] using his hands\\n to accomplish that, those sexual acts.\\n\\n Wandahsega contends that (1) “the use of acquitted conduct to enhance a sentence defies\\nnotions of justice,” and (2) the allegations of sexual abuse were not proven by a preponderance\\nof the evidence. He cites dissenting opinions and an out-of-circuit district court opinion to\\nhighlight the alleged injustice of using acquitted conduct to determine a defendant’s sentence.\\nBut controlling caselaw explicitly allows sentencing courts to consider such acquitted conduct.\\nIn United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997), for example, the Supreme Court held that “a\\njury’s verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct\\nunderlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of\\nthe evidence.” Id. at 157. An en banc panel of this court similarly held that “the district court’s\\nconsideration of acquitted conduct in sentencing passes constitutional muster . . . insofar as\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 23\\n\\n\\nenhancements based on acquitted conduct do not increase a sentence beyond the maximum\\npenalty provided by the United States Code.” United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381, 386 (6th Cir.\\n2008) (en banc). Because the district court determined that the government had proven by a\\npreponderance of the evidence that Wandahsega committed criminal sexual abuse and did not\\nsentence Wandahsega beyond the maximum penalty provided for by the statute, the court\\ncorrectly concluded that it could consider the sexual abuse for which Wandahsega was acquitted\\nin determining his sentence.\\n\\n Nor did the district court commit clear error in determining that the government had\\nproven by a preponderance of evidence that Wandahsega had committed criminal sexual abuse\\nby engaging in sexual acts with H.D.W. H.D.W. testified that his father had touched H.D.W.’s\\nprivates—where he “poop[s] and pee[s].” And Dr. Judy testified that H.D.W. said that, a\\nnumber of days prior to H.D.W.’s hospital visit, Wandahsega had touched H.D.W.’s “penis and\\nput his finger up his rectum on occasion.” Those incidents fit within the definition of a sexual\\nact, which includes “the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by\\na hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or\\ngratify the sexual desire of any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2)(C). And because H.D.W. was\\n“incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct” at six years of age, the government proved by\\nat least a preponderance of the evidence that Wandahsega committed sexual abuse. See id.\\n§ 2242(2)(A).\\n\\n Even without the DNA evidence, which Wandahsega contends was “essentially\\nmeaningless,” the district court found that H.D.W. was credible. See Anderson v. City of\\nBessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985) (“Where there are two permissible views of the\\nevidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”); United States v.\\nEsteppe, 483 F.3d 447, 452 (6th Cir. 2007) (“We afford the district court’s credibility\\ndeterminations regarding witness testimony great deference . . . .”). The district court therefore\\ndid not err in applying § 2A3.1 of the Guidelines to Wandahsega’s sentence.\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 24\\n\\n\\n 3. Special assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act\\n\\n Wandahsega’s third procedural challenge to his sentence concerns the imposition of a\\n$5,000 special assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA) of 2015,\\n18 U.S.C. § 3014(a)(2). The JVTA provides that, in addition to the standard special assessment\\nagainst those convicted of felonies under 18 U.S.C. § 3013, “the court shall assess an amount of\\n$5,000 on any non-indigent person or entity convicted of an offense under . . . chapter 109A\\n(relating to sexual abuse).” Id. § 3014(a)(2). Defendants have “20 years after the release from\\nimprisonment” to pay the assessment. Id. §§ 3014(g), 3613(b). At sentencing, the district court\\nimposed the special assessment without making a detailed factual finding of Wandahsega’s\\nnonindigence, but “detailed findings are not necessary where it can be inferred that the district\\ncourt considered the defendant’s ability to pay and other factors required by law.” See United\\nStates v. Powell, 423 F. App’x 602, 610–11 (6th Cir. 2011).\\n\\n Wandahsega contends that the district court erred in imposing the JVTA special\\nassessment because he was indigent at the time of sentencing. He was found eligible for\\ncourt-appointed counsel in the district court, and the court determined that he would be unable to\\npay a fine. Moreover, the PSR stated that Wandahsega has never had a job earning more than\\n$10 per hour, that he has no assets other than a checking account containing $200, and that he\\nhas $30,000 in outstanding medical bills. But the PSR also said that Wandahsega “believes he\\nwill obtain employment with Hannahville Indian Community upon his release.” The PSR\\ntherefore concluded that, although Wandahsega could not “satisfy a lump sum payment in the\\nadvisory fine range,” he “may be able to make incremental payments towards a financial\\nsanction.”\\n\\n Because Wandahsega did not object to the $5,000 special assessment before the district\\ncourt, he “may obtain relief on appeal only if the error is ‘plain’ and ‘affects substantial rights.’”\\nSee United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 385 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting Fed. R. Crim.\\nP. 52(b)). Section 3014 does not define the term “indigent,” but this court has held that in\\nassessing indigency, the court must resolve two basic questions: “(1) Is the defendant\\nimpoverished now; and (2) if so, does the defendant have the means to provide for himself so\\nthat he will not always be impoverished?” United States v. Shepherd, -- F.3d --, No. 18-3993,\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 25\\n\\n\\n2019 WL 1925640, at *3 (6th Cir. May 1, 2019) (emphasis in original). We may therefore\\nconsider a defendant’s future earning potential in determining indigency. Id.\\n\\n Wandahsega argues that he is currently impoverished due to his outstanding debts and\\nlack of assets. He further contends that his substance-abuse and mental-health issues impede his\\nfuture ability to earn money, as does a federal sex-offense conviction on his record. Contrary to\\nhis argument, however, the PSR states that Wandahsega “believes he will obtain employment\\nwith Hannahville Indian Community upon his release.” And Wandahsega does not address why\\nhe would be unable to earn money while incarcerated. See United States v. King, 466 F. App’x\\n484, 489–90 (6th Cir. 2012) (upholding the imposition of a fine despite the defendant’s current\\nlack of ability to pay it, where he could participate in the Bureau of Prisons’ Financial Program\\nto work the fine off). Even if Wandahsega should be classified as impoverished now, and even if\\nhe earns only a minimum hourly wage when released from prison, he has not demonstrated that\\nhe will be unable to pay the assessment in increments over a twenty-year period.\\n\\n Furthermore, the fact that Wandahsega qualified for court-appointed counsel “is\\nprobative but not dispositive of whether [he] is indigent under § 3014.” Shepherd, 2019 WL\\n1925640, at *4. District courts may appoint counsel to defendants if they are “financially unable\\nto obtain adequate representation,” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a), but “the standard of financial inability\\nis ‘something less than indigency or destitution.’” Brown v. United States, 716 F. App’x 488,\\n492 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653, 660 (2d Cir. 1983)).\\n“Indigency is a more dire condition than simply living paycheck-to-paycheck: it summons the\\nthought of one who earns no paycheck at all and instead relies on others for life’s basic\\nnecessities.” Shepherd, 2019 WL 1925640, at *3.\\n\\n Finally, the JVTA special assessment is not discretionary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a)(2)\\n(“[T]he court shall assess an amount of $5,000 on any non-indigent person . . . .” (emphasis\\nadded)). It is akin to a fine imposed as part of a sentence. For fines under the Sentencing\\nGuidelines, the district court “shall” impose a fine and the defendant bears the burden of proving\\nindigency. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5E1.2. Wandahsega has failed to show that the\\ndistrict court plainly erred in concluding that he failed to meet that burden. He has also failed to\\n\\f No. 18-1219 United States v. Wandahsega Page 26\\n\\n\\ndemonstrate that any alleged error by the district court affected his substantial rights, as required\\nunder the plain-error standard.\\n\\n 4. Substantive reasonableness of the sentence\\n\\n Finally, Wandahsega contends that his 288-month (24-year) sentence is substantively\\nunreasonable because it is excessive in light of the purposes of sentencing. For a sentence to be\\nsubstantively reasonable, “it must be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances of the\\noffense and offender, and sufficient but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes”\\nof § 3553(a). United States v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503, 512 (citation and internal quotation marks\\nomitted). This court applies a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness to a\\nwithin-guidelines sentence. Vonner, 516 F.3d at 389. Demonstrating that a below-Guidelines\\nsentence is unreasonable “is even more demanding.” United States v. Curry, 536 F.3d 571, 573\\n(6th Cir. 2008).\\n\\n Wandahsega has not explained why the district court’s sentence is not proportionate to\\nthe seriousness of the offense for which he was convicted, nor has he explained in more than a\\nconclusory manner why the sentence is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of\\n§ 3553(a). In fact, the district court departed from the Sentencing Guidelines and varied\\ndownward four levels when sentencing Wandahsega because it found that the Guidelines range\\nof 360 months to life imprisonment was “greater than necessary.”\\n\\n To determine the sentence, which ended up being 72 months below the Guidelines range,\\nthe district court carefully considered each of the factors set out in § 3553(a) and explained the\\nreasoning behind the sentence. Wandahsega therefore has not met his heavy burden of\\ndemonstrating that his below-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable. The district court therefore\\ndid not abuse its discretion in sentencing Wandahsega to 288 months of imprisonment.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For all of the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM all aspects of the district court’s\\njudgment.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2085,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4621742,"string":"4,621,742"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"In RE: CAPITAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, Debtor. Carl F. Schier PLC, Appellant, v. Kenneth A. Nathan, Trustee, Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"PLC v. Nathan (In Re Capital Contracting Co.)"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-21"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2219"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Moore, Sutton, Murphy\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"MURPHY, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0098p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n IN RE: CAPITAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, ┐\\n Debtor. │\\n ___________________________________________ │\\n │\\n CARL F. SCHIER PLC, > No. 18-2219\\n Appellant, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. │\\n │\\n KENNETH A. NATHAN, Trustee, │\\n Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:18-cv-11227—Denise Page Hood, Chief District Judge.\\n\\n United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit;\\n No. 2:14-bk-58920—Mark A. Randon, Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 21, 2019\\n\\n Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Carl F. Schier, CARL F. SCHIER PLC, Ypsilanti, Michigan, for Appellant.\\nHoward S. Sher, JACOB & WEINGARTEN, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Explaining that “jurisdiction” “is a word of many, too many,\\nmeanings,” the Supreme Court in recent years has criticized the cavalier way in which earlier\\ncases invoked the term. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 510 (2006) (citation omitted).\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 2\\n\\n\\nThe Court has sought to clarify the divide between truly jurisdictional requirements (those that\\nconcern whether a court has the power to resolve a dispute) and non-jurisdictional merits\\nrequirements (those that concern whether a party has asserted a valid claim). Id. at 510–12. The\\ndecision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118\\n(2014)—which jettisoned the label “prudential standing”—suggests that the Court has started\\ndown the same path for the word “standing.” Id. at 125. In this case, a bankruptcy court held\\nthat a law firm lacked standing to object to a trustee’s final report in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy\\ncase, and the district court held that the firm also lacked standing to appeal under a test tailored\\nto bankruptcy appeals. Given the post-Lexmark uncertainty about various standing concepts, we\\nhold that the firm lacked the one type of standing that Lexmark undoubtedly does not affect:\\nArticle III standing. We affirm the district court’s order dismissing the appeal on that basis.\\n\\n I\\n\\n Carl F. Schier PLC represented Capital Contracting Co. in a suit filed by Longhorn\\nEstates, LLC, in Michigan state court. The litigation did not turn out well for Capital\\nContracting. It was hit with over a $5-million judgment and landed in bankruptcy a month later.\\nIts proceedings under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code stayed its litigation against Longhorn\\nwith post-trial motions pending. But that state-court judgment turned Longhorn into Capital\\nContracting’s biggest creditor, so Longhorn filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings. When\\nSchier also filed a claim for unpaid legal fees owed by Capital Contracting, the trustee\\nrepresenting the estate countered with a malpractice suit against Schier for its handling of the\\nLonghorn litigation. The trustee and Schier eventually settled. Schier agreed to pay the estate\\n$600,000 and to withdraw its attorney’s fees claim; the trustee released Schier of further\\nmalpractice liability. The bankruptcy court approved this settlement, and Schier formally\\nwithdrew its claim. All’s well that ends well.\\n\\n Or so it seemed. When the trustee filed a final report detailing the distribution of Capital\\nContracting’s assets, 11 U.S.C. § 704(a)(9), Schier reemerged with an objection. The firm\\nalleged that Capital Contracting’s right to appeal the state-court judgment in the Longhorn suit\\nqualified as an “asset” of the estate that the trustee should have administered or abandoned. Cf.\\nCroft v. Lowry (In re Croft), 737 F.3d 372, 376–77 (5th Cir. 2013). The bankruptcy court\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 3\\n\\n\\noverruled Schier’s objection and approved the final report. It explained that Schier should have\\nraised this issue by objecting to Longhorn’s claim when Schier had a pending fees request—a\\npoint in time at which Schier remained a “creditor” with “standing.” Because Schier had\\nwithdrawn its claim for attorney’s fees, the bankruptcy court continued, the firm failed to qualify\\nas a “party in interest” with a “pecuniary interest or stake in the outcome,” and did not “have\\nstanding to object to the trustee’s final report and account.”\\n\\n Schier appealed to the district court. The district court dismissed its appeal on a related\\nbut distinct “standing” ground—that Schier lacked standing to appeal. “It is well-established\\nlaw,” the district court reasoned, that “[i]n order to have standing to appeal a bankruptcy court\\norder, an appellant must have been directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by the order.”\\nCarl F. Schier, PLC v. Nathan (In re Capital Contracting Co.), No. 18-11227, 2018 WL\\n4492240, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). This “person-\\naggrieved” test for appeals, the district court continued, demands more than Article III standing.\\nId. The court concluded that Schier could not meet that test because its “direct and immediate\\ninterest in the bankruptcy proceeding ceased when” it withdrew its attorney’s fees claim. Id.\\n\\n II\\n\\n This case’s many “standing”-related issues would make it worthy of inclusion in a final\\nexam for a federal-courts class. As a refresher, Article III of the Constitution delegates the\\n“judicial Power” to the Supreme Court and any “inferior Courts” that Congress may create, and\\nit allows these courts to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, §§ 1–2. For a\\nsuit to qualify as a “case” falling within Article III, the party who seeks relief must have\\nstanding. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 101–04 (1998). This Article III\\nstanding requires a party to have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the\\nchallenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial\\ndecision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). In addition to Article III’s\\nstanding floor, the Supreme Court also once adopted “judicially self-imposed limits on the\\nexercise of federal jurisdiction” that Article III otherwise would permit. Allen v. Wright, 468\\nU.S. 737, 751 (1984). While the Court used to refer to these limits collectively as the\\n“‘prudential’ branch of standing,” it has since called that generic label “misleading” because\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 4\\n\\n\\neach of these limits raises distinct questions. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components,\\nInc., 572 U.S. 118, 125–28 & nn.3–4 (2014). In this case, the differing rationales of the\\nbankruptcy court and the district court implicate these varied “standing” doctrines.\\n\\n 1. Schier’s Standing To Object. The bankruptcy court found that Schier lacked\\n“standing” to object to the trustee’s report. Did it mean Article III standing? Bankruptcy courts\\nare not Article III courts, Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 469 (2011), so that conclusion would\\nraise an interesting question addressed by few cases: Must parties who appear in non-Article III\\nbankruptcy courts meet the justiciability requirements that apply in Article III courts?\\n\\n Some have said that the Constitution imposes Article III’s rules on bankruptcy courts\\nbecause they are “adjunct[s]” of district courts. Bucchino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re\\nBucchino), 439 B.R. 761, 768 n.10 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2010); see also Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld (In re\\nRosenfeld), 698 F. App’x 300, 303 (6th Cir. 2017); but cf. Stern, 564 U.S. at 500–01. This\\nconstitutional view of the bankruptcy court’s use of the word “standing” would raise other\\nsubsidiary questions. What time should a court examine when assessing whether Schier has\\nsuffered an Article III injury—when it filed a proof of claim (for attorney’s fees) or when it\\nmade the relevant objection (to the final report)? Cf. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.\\n555, 569 n.4 (1992). And because Schier settled in between those events, has this constitutional\\nstanding inquiry really turned into a constitutional mootness inquiry? See Arizonans for Official\\nEnglish v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997).\\n\\n Others have stated that “[b]ankruptcy courts are not Article III creatures bound by\\ntraditional standing requirements,” which means that courts should ask only whether a party has\\nsatisfied the standing-esque requirements that the Bankruptcy Code codifies as a statutory\\nmatter. Furlough v. Cage (In re Technicool Sys., Inc.), 896 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2018).\\nLexmark shunned the label “prudential standing,” so it may be a “misnomer” to lump these\\nstatutory requirements together under the rubric “bankruptcy standing.” In re C.P. Hall Co.,\\n750 F.3d 659, 660 (7th Cir. 2014). Instead of creating a jurisdictional question (about the power\\nof the court to decide an issue), these requirements may create a merits question (about whether\\nthe Bankruptcy Code’s text gives the specific party a right to raise the specific objection). Id. at\\n661. The bankruptcy court’s reasoning in this case could be read this way. It suggested that\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 5\\n\\n\\nSchier did not qualify as a “party in interest,” and a bankruptcy rule notes that the final report in\\na Chapter 7 case creates a presumption that the estate has been fully administered if “no\\nobjection has been filed by . . . a party in interest” within 30 days. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5009(a).\\n\\n Yet this statutory view of the bankruptcy court’s use of the word “standing” also raises\\ntricky issues. For one thing, we have not located a specific statutory provision (apart from the\\nnon-substantive rule) indicating that a “party in interest” (or anyone else) may object to final\\nreports in Chapter 7 cases. Nor have we found a general statutory provision allowing “parties in\\ninterest” to make universal objections. The Bankruptcy Code instead uses the phrase “party in\\ninterest” at distinct places, including in a statutory list of “parties in interest” who may appear\\nand raise an issue in Chapter 11 proceedings, 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b), a provision identifying who\\nmay object to a claim, id. § 502(a), and a provision identifying who may ask the court to convert\\na Chapter 7 case into a Chapter 11 case, id. § 706(b). While some have read the Chapter 11\\ncatch-all in § 1109(b) as impliedly applicable to Chapter 7, Westwood Cmty. Two Ass’n v.\\nBarbee (In re Westwood Cmty. Two Ass’n), 293 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002), we have yet to\\ncross that Rubicon.\\n\\n For another, courts have debated whether this party-in-interest language demands only\\nArticle III standing, In re Global Indus. Techs., Inc., 645 F.3d 201, 211 (3d Cir. 2011), or a more\\ndirect interest, Hughes v. Tower Park Props., LLC (In re Tower Park Props., LLC), 803 F.3d\\n450, 457 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2015). Our court has given little analysis on the meaning of this phrase.\\nSee Jahn v. Burke (In re Burke), 863 F.3d 521, 525–27 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n\\n For a third, if the question whether the Bankruptcy Code allows Schier to object to the\\nreport raises a merits issue, Article III courts may not be able to answer the question on appeal\\nwithout first confirming their own jurisdiction, including Article III standing. Steel Co.,\\n523 U.S. at 93–101; compare Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 128 n.4, with Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527\\nU.S. 815, 831 (1999).\\n\\n 2. Schier’s Bankruptcy Standing To Appeal. We could avoid these questions over the\\nbankruptcy court’s use of the word “standing” by taking the district court’s route to this case’s\\nresolution. It dismissed Schier’s appeal because the firm lacked standing under the person-\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 6\\n\\n\\naggrieved test governing bankruptcy appeals. Schier, 2018 WL 4492240, at *2. That test once\\nfollowed the Bankruptcy Code’s text. In 1898, Congress gave duties to bankruptcy “referees”\\n(predecessors to bankruptcy judges) and later allowed a “person aggrieved” to petition for\\njudicial review of a referee’s order. 11 U.S.C. § 67(c) (1976); Bankruptcy Act of 1938, Pub. L.\\n75-696, 52 Stat. 840, 858 (1938). A phrase like “person aggrieved” has long been a “term of art”\\nsignifying who may challenge agency actions. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,\\nDep’t of Labor v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U.S. 122, 126 (1995). In\\nthe bankruptcy context, courts read the phrase to require a party to “be directly and adversely\\naffected pecuniarily by the order of the referee which is challenged.” Hartman Corp. of Am. v.\\nUnited States, 304 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1962); see Miller v. Gosline (In re Sunningdale\\nCountry Club), 351 F.2d 139, 143 (6th Cir. 1965). That test has teeth. “Appellate standing in\\nbankruptcy cases is more limited than Article III standing or the prudential requirements\\nassociated therewith.” Harker v. Troutman (In re Troutman Enters., Inc.), 286 F.3d 359, 364\\n(6th Cir. 2002).\\n\\n In 1978, however, Congress’s rewrite of the Bankruptcy Code deleted the person-\\naggrieved text from the statute authorizing appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). Despite this\\nchange, federal courts (including our own) have continued to apply the person-aggrieved test “as\\na matter of judge-made law.” Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. L.T. Ruth Coal Co. (In re L.T. Ruth\\nCoal Co.), No. 85-5990, 1986 WL 17769, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 1986); Westwood, 293 F.3d at\\n1334–35 (citing cases); In re Troutman Enters., 286 F.3d at 364–65. What is the source of\\nauthority for courts to apply this gloss on § 158(a)? Courts have characterized the test as\\n“a prudential prerequisite to standing,” Westwood, 293 F.3d at 1335 n.3, resting on the “need for\\nan explicit limitation on standing to appeal in bankruptcy proceedings,” Fondiller v. Robertson\\n(In re Fondiller), 707 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983). At one time, this reasoning might have\\nbeen viewed as a garden-variety application of the Supreme Court’s cases authorizing “judicially\\nself-imposed limits” on jurisdiction. Allen, 468 U.S. at 751.\\n\\n Then came Lexmark. Interpreting the Lanham Act’s cause of action for parties harmed\\nby false advertising, the Court distanced itself from prudential standing. 572 U.S. at 125. In that\\ncase, the plaintiff’s lost commercial sales qualified as an Article III injury, so the defendant\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 7\\n\\n\\nargued that the Court “should decline to adjudicate [the plaintiff’s] claim on grounds that are\\n‘prudential,’ rather than constitutional.” Id. at 125–26. Lexmark rejected the request. It recalled\\nthe duty of federal courts to decide cases within their jurisdiction. Id. at 126; Cohens v. Virginia,\\n19 U.S. 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.). And it clarified that prior decisions invoking the\\n“prudential standing” label had really asked a statutory-interpretation question: Does the specific\\nstatute give the specific plaintiff a right to bring the specific suit? Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 128. If\\nthe statute does so, courts lack discretion to decline to hear the claim: Just as courts do not have\\na “prudential” license to open the courthouse doors when the statutory text has closed them,\\nLexmark reasoned, so too they lack a “prudential” license to close the courthouse doors when the\\nstatutory text has opened them. Id. (citing Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286–87 (2001)).\\n\\n Our court has yet to consider Lexmark’s effect, if any, on the person-aggrieved test\\ngoverning prudential standing in bankruptcy appeals. Without citing Lexmark, we have found\\nthat test met in one case (so Lexmark likely did not matter to the outcome), Brown v. Ellmann (In\\nre Brown), 851 F.3d 619, 623–24 (6th Cir. 2017), and we have found the test unsatisfied in an\\nunpublished case, Cotter v. Stevenson (In re Cotter), No. 16-1449, 2017 WL 8236168, at *1 (6th\\nCir. Mar. 1, 2017). Looking outside our circuit, one court has said that the person-aggrieved test\\ncomports with Lexmark, albeit with limited explanation. U.S. Bank v. SFR Investments Pool 1,\\nLLC (In re Petrone), 754 F. App’x 590, 591 (9th Cir. 2019). Another has flagged this issue, but\\nsidestepped it by resolving the appeal on Article III grounds. Arlington Capital, LLC v. Bainton\\nMcCarthy LLC (In re GT Automation Grp., Inc.), 828 F.3d 602, 604–05 & n.1 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n\\n 3. Schier’s Article III Standing To Appeal. These questions concerning “standing” in\\nbankruptcy courts and bankruptcy appeals may eventually need answers. But this is not the case\\nto provide them. We take a third route to the case’s resolution—the route taken by the Seventh\\nCircuit in GT Automation. Whether or not parties must satisfy Article III rules in non-Article III\\ncourts and whether or not they must satisfy even stricter standing rules in appeals to Article III\\ncourts, parties must at least satisfy Article III rules in appeals to Article III courts. As the\\nSupreme Court has explained, Article III “standing ‘must be met by persons seeking appellate\\nreview, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance.’” Hollingsworth v.\\nPerry, 570 U.S. 693, 705 (2013) (quoting Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S. at 64);\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 8\\n\\n\\nDiamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986). By way of analogy, parties that file “appeals from\\nadministrative agencies” must satisfy Article III standing when entering Article III courts.\\nConsumer Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research Found., 753 F.3d 1258, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2014)\\n(citing Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 899 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). Parties that file appeals from\\nbankruptcy courts must do the same. See GT Automation, 828 F.3d at 604–05 & n.1.\\n\\n An Article III injury includes well-known ingredients. “To establish injury in fact, a\\nplaintiff must show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is\\n‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Spokeo,\\n136 S. Ct. at 1548 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). A particularized injury affects the party in a\\nspecific way (in contrast to a generalized grievance), and a concrete injury affects the party in a\\nreal way (in contrast to an abstract grievance). Id. at 1548–49. On appeal, moreover, “the focus\\nshifts to injury caused by the judgment rather than injury caused by the underlying facts.”\\n15A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3902 (2d ed.), Westlaw\\n(database updated Apr. 2019); see ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617–18 (1989).\\n\\n Here, Schier has not shown that it suffered an Article III injury from the bankruptcy\\ncourt’s order approving the trustee’s final report, despite the report’s failure to list Capital\\nContracting’s appeal rights in the Longhorn litigation. To begin with, the failure to list those\\nrights could not financially harm Schier. By that point, Schier had settled with the trustee and\\nwithdrawn its attorney’s fees claim. Even assuming, for example, that the proposed appeal\\nwould reduce Longhorn’s state-court judgment to zero, that reversal could not provide Schier\\nwith one cent more in attorney’s fees. The order thus did not affect Schier in a “‘personal and\\nindividual way.’” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548 (citation omitted).\\n\\n That leaves Schier—the law firm for the losing party in the state-court litigation—with\\nthe strong feelings that it developed over the validity of its proposed appeal. But “‘[t]he\\npresence of a disagreement, however sharp and acrimonious it may be, is insufficient by itself to\\nmeet [Article] III’s requirements.’” Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 704 (quoting Diamond, 476 U.S.\\nat 62). The Supreme Court has taught that Article III courts are not the place for “‘concerned\\nbystanders’” to vindicate “‘value interests.’” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for\\nSeparation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 473 (1982) (citation omitted). If that principle\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 9\\n\\n\\nis broad enough to rebut private parties who desire to defend the constitutionality of a state’s\\nlaws, Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 704, it is broad enough to rebut Schier’s attempt to vindicate its\\nunderstanding of the state laws that would be at issue in the state-court appeal.\\n\\n Schier’s responses do not change things. The firm initially presents a full-throated\\nargument on the merits, claiming that it need not establish standing because the Bankruptcy\\nCode required the trustee and the bankruptcy court to fix the final report’s purported error on\\ntheir own initiative. This does nothing to exempt Schier from the Article III injury requirement.\\nSchier may not assert merely the “vindication of the rule of law” as its basis for harm without\\nalleging an actual injury from the purported violation. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 106. Or, to look at\\nthe question from the remedy side, Schier’s “psychic satisfaction” that the bankruptcy “laws are\\nfaithfully enforced” “is not an acceptable Article III remedy because it does not redress a\\ncognizable Article III injury.” Id. at 107. In short, “an asserted right to have the Government act\\nin accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court.”\\nAllen, 468 U.S. at 754. That rule covers the alleged violation that Schier claims here.\\n\\n Schier next asserts that the justiciability rules in Michigan state court would allow it to\\npursue the appeal under a public-rights theory of standing given the type of claims that it seeks to\\nraise in the state appellate courts. That is beside the point. “[T]he constraints of Article III do\\nnot apply to state courts, and accordingly the state courts are not bound by the limitations of a\\ncase or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability.” ASARCO, 490 U.S. at 617. Even\\nassuming that Schier could bring a claim or pursue an appeal in state court without the need to\\nshow a concrete and particularized injury, that claim does nothing to establish such an injury in\\nan Article III court. Cf. GT Automation, 828 F.3d at 605. The purported loss of a generalized\\ngrievance is still just a generalized grievance.\\n\\n Indeed, the trustee argues that Schier’s allegations of injury are so lacking that we should\\nfind this appeal frivolous and award damages under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. We\\ndecline the invitation. See Hogan v. Jacobson, 823 F.3d 872, 886 (6th Cir. 2016). We add that\\nthe rule requires “a separately filed motion” by an appellee seeking damages for a frivolous\\nappeal, “or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond.” Fed. R. App. P. 38.\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 10\\n\\n\\nStatements made in an appellee’s brief do not provide sufficient notice to the appellant.\\nSee Jodway v. Fifth Third Bank (In re Jodway), 719 F. App’x 502, 506 (6th Cir. 2018).\\n\\n We affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing Schier’s appeal.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4398995/\", \"author_raw\": \"MURPHY, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MOORE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SUTTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"MURPHY"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621742/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: In RE: CAPITAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, Debtor. Carl F. Schier PLC, Appellant, v. Kenneth A. Nathan, Trustee, Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-21\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0098p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n IN RE: CAPITAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, ┐\n Debtor. │\n ___________________________________________ │\n │\n CARL F. SCHIER PLC, > No. 18-2219\n Appellant, │\n │\n │\n v. │\n │\n KENNETH A. NATHAN, Trustee, │\n Appellee. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\n No. 2:18-cv-11227—Denise Page Hood, Chief District Judge.\n\n United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit;\n No. 2:14-bk-58920—Mark A. Randon, Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: May 21, 2019\n\n Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: Carl F. Schier, CARL F. SCHIER PLC, Ypsilanti, Michigan, for Appellant.\nHoward S. Sher, JACOB & WEINGARTEN, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Explaining that “jurisdiction” “is a word of many, too many,\nmeanings,” the Supreme Court in recent years has criticized the cavalier way in which earlier\ncases invoked the term. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 510 (2006) (citation omitted).\n\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 2\n\n\nThe Court has sought to clarify the divide between truly jurisdictional requirements (those that\nconcern whether a court has the power to resolve a dispute) and non-jurisdictional merits\nrequirements (those that concern whether a party has asserted a valid claim). Id. at 510–12. The\ndecision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118\n(2014)—which jettisoned the label “prudential standing”—suggests that the Court has started\ndown the same path for the word “standing.” Id. at 125. In this case, a bankruptcy court held\nthat a law firm lacked standing to object to a trustee’s final report in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy\ncase, and the district court held that the firm also lacked standing to appeal under a test tailored\nto bankruptcy appeals. Given the post-Lexmark uncertainty about various standing concepts, we\nhold that the firm lacked the one type of standing that Lexmark undoubtedly does not affect:\nArticle III standing. We affirm the district court’s order dismissing the appeal on that basis.\n\n I\n\n Carl F. Schier PLC represented Capital Contracting Co. in a suit filed by Longhorn\nEstates, LLC, in Michigan state court. The litigation did not turn out well for Capital\nContracting. It was hit with over a $5-million judgment and landed in bankruptcy a month later.\nIts proceedings under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code stayed its litigation against Longhorn\nwith post-trial motions pending. But that state-court judgment turned Longhorn into Capital\nContracting’s biggest creditor, so Longhorn filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings. When\nSchier also filed a claim for unpaid legal fees owed by Capital Contracting, the trustee\nrepresenting the estate countered with a malpractice suit against Schier for its handling of the\nLonghorn litigation. The trustee and Schier eventually settled. Schier agreed to pay the estate\n$600,000 and to withdraw its attorney’s fees claim; the trustee released Schier of further\nmalpractice liability. The bankruptcy court approved this settlement, and Schier formally\nwithdrew its claim. All’s well that ends well.\n\n Or so it seemed. When the trustee filed a final report detailing the distribution of Capital\nContracting’s assets, 11 U.S.C. § 704(a)(9), Schier reemerged with an objection. The firm\nalleged that Capital Contracting’s right to appeal the state-court judgment in the Longhorn suit\nqualified as an “asset” of the estate that the trustee should have administered or abandoned. Cf.\nCroft v. Lowry (In re Croft), 737 F.3d 372, 376–77 (5th Cir. 2013). The bankruptcy court\n\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 3\n\n\noverruled Schier’s objection and approved the final report. It explained that Schier should have\nraised this issue by objecting to Longhorn’s claim when Schier had a pending fees request—a\npoint in time at which Schier remained a “creditor” with “standing.” Because Schier had\nwithdrawn its claim for attorney’s fees, the bankruptcy court continued, the firm failed to qualify\nas a “party in interest” with a “pecuniary interest or stake in the outcome,” and did not “have\nstanding to object to the trustee’s final report and account.”\n\n Schier appealed to the district court. The district court dismissed its appeal on a related\nbut distinct “standing” ground—that Schier lacked standing to appeal. “It is well-established\nlaw,” the district court reasoned, that “[i]n order to have standing to appeal a bankruptcy court\norder, an appellant must have been directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by the order.”\nCarl F. Schier, PLC v. Nathan (In re Capital Contracting Co.), No. 18-11227, 2018 WL\n4492240, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). This “person-\naggrieved” test for appeals, the district court continued, demands more than Article III standing.\nId. The court concluded that Schier could not meet that test because its “direct and immediate\ninterest in the bankruptcy proceeding ceased when” it withdrew its attorney’s fees claim. Id.\n\n II\n\n This case’s many “standing”-related issues would make it worthy of inclusion in a final\nexam for a federal-courts class. As a refresher, Article III of the Constitution delegates the\n“judicial Power” to the Supreme Court and any “inferior Courts” that Congress may create, and\nit allows these courts to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, §§ 1–2. For a\nsuit to qualify as a “case” falling within Article III, the party who seeks relief must have\nstanding. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 101–04 (1998). This Article III\nstanding requires a party to have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the\nchallenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial\ndecision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). In addition to Article III’s\nstanding floor, the Supreme Court also once adopted “judicially self-imposed limits on the\nexercise of federal jurisdiction” that Article III otherwise would permit. Allen v. Wright, 468\nU.S. 737, 751 (1984). While the Court used to refer to these limits collectively as the\n“‘prudential’ branch of standing,” it has since called that generic label “misleading” because\n\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 4\n\n\neach of these limits raises distinct questions. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components,\nInc., 572 U.S. 118, 125–28 & nn.3–4 (2014). In this case, the differing rationales of the\nbankruptcy court and the district court implicate these varied “standing” doctrines.\n\n 1. Schier’s Standing To Object. The bankruptcy court found that Schier lacked\n“standing” to object to the trustee’s report. Did it mean Article III standing? Bankruptcy courts\nare not Article III courts, Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 469 (2011), so that conclusion would\nraise an interesting question addressed by few cases: Must parties who appear in non-Article III\nbankruptcy courts meet the justiciability requirements that apply in Article III courts?\n\n Some have said that the Constitution imposes Article III’s rules on bankruptcy courts\nbecause they are “adjunct[s]” of district courts. Bucchino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re\nBucchino), 439 B.R. 761, 768 n.10 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2010); see also Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld (In re\nRosenfeld), 698 F. App’x 300, 303 (6th Cir. 2017); but cf. Stern, 564 U.S. at 500–01. This\nconstitutional view of the bankruptcy court’s use of the word “standing” would raise other\nsubsidiary questions. What time should a court examine when assessing whether Schier has\nsuffered an Article III injury—when it filed a proof of claim (for attorney’s fees) or when it\nmade the relevant objection (to the final report)? Cf. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.\n555, 569 n.4 (1992). And because Schier settled in between those events, has this constitutional\nstanding inquiry really turned into a constitutional mootness inquiry? See Arizonans for Official\nEnglish v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997).\n\n Others have stated that “[b]ankruptcy courts are not Article III creatures bound by\ntraditional standing requirements,” which means that courts should ask only whether a party has\nsatisfied the standing-esque requirements that the Bankruptcy Code codifies as a statutory\nmatter. Furlough v. Cage (In re Technicool Sys., Inc.), 896 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2018).\nLexmark shunned the label “prudential standing,” so it may be a “misnomer” to lump these\nstatutory requirements together under the rubric “bankruptcy standing.” In re C.P. Hall Co.,\n750 F.3d 659, 660 (7th Cir. 2014). Instead of creating a jurisdictional question (about the power\nof the court to decide an issue), these requirements may create a merits question (about whether\nthe Bankruptcy Code’s text gives the specific party a right to raise the specific objection). Id. at\n661. The bankruptcy court’s reasoning in this case could be read this way. It suggested that\n\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 5\n\n\nSchier did not qualify as a “party in interest,” and a bankruptcy rule notes that the final report in\na Chapter 7 case creates a presumption that the estate has been fully administered if “no\nobjection has been filed by . . . a party in interest” within 30 days. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5009(a).\n\n Yet this statutory view of the bankruptcy court’s use of the word “standing” also raises\ntricky issues. For one thing, we have not located a specific statutory provision (apart from the\nnon-substantive rule) indicating that a “party in interest” (or anyone else) may object to final\nreports in Chapter 7 cases. Nor have we found a general statutory provision allowing “parties in\ninterest” to make universal objections. The Bankruptcy Code instead uses the phrase “party in\ninterest” at distinct places, including in a statutory list of “parties in interest” who may appear\nand raise an issue in Chapter 11 proceedings, 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b), a provision identifying who\nmay object to a claim, id. § 502(a), and a provision identifying who may ask the court to convert\na Chapter 7 case into a Chapter 11 case, id. § 706(b). While some have read the Chapter 11\ncatch-all in § 1109(b) as impliedly applicable to Chapter 7, Westwood Cmty. Two Ass’n v.\nBarbee (In re Westwood Cmty. Two Ass’n), 293 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002), we have yet to\ncross that Rubicon.\n\n For another, courts have debated whether this party-in-interest language demands only\nArticle III standing, In re Global Indus. Techs., Inc., 645 F.3d 201, 211 (3d Cir. 2011), or a more\ndirect interest, Hughes v. Tower Park Props., LLC (In re Tower Park Props., LLC), 803 F.3d\n450, 457 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2015). Our court has given little analysis on the meaning of this phrase.\nSee Jahn v. Burke (In re Burke), 863 F.3d 521, 525–27 (6th Cir. 2017).\n\n For a third, if the question whether the Bankruptcy Code allows Schier to object to the\nreport raises a merits issue, Article III courts may not be able to answer the question on appeal\nwithout first confirming their own jurisdiction, including Article III standing. Steel Co.,\n523 U.S. at 93–101; compare Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 128 n.4, with Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527\nU.S. 815, 831 (1999).\n\n 2. Schier’s Bankruptcy Standing To Appeal. We could avoid these questions over the\nbankruptcy court’s use of the word “standing” by taking the district court’s route to this case’s\nresolution. It dismissed Schier’s appeal because the firm lacked standing under the person-\n\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 6\n\n\naggrieved test governing bankruptcy appeals. Schier, 2018 WL 4492240, at *2. That test once\nfollowed the Bankruptcy Code’s text. In 1898, Congress gave duties to bankruptcy “referees”\n(predecessors to bankruptcy judges) and later allowed a “person aggrieved” to petition for\njudicial review of a referee’s order. 11 U.S.C. § 67(c) (1976); Bankruptcy Act of 1938, Pub. L.\n75-696, 52 Stat. 840, 858 (1938). A phrase like “person aggrieved” has long been a “term of art”\nsignifying who may challenge agency actions. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,\nDep’t of Labor v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U.S. 122, 126 (1995). In\nthe bankruptcy context, courts read the phrase to require a party to “be directly and adversely\naffected pecuniarily by the order of the referee which is challenged.” Hartman Corp. of Am. v.\nUnited States, 304 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1962); see Miller v. Gosline (In re Sunningdale\nCountry Club), 351 F.2d 139, 143 (6th Cir. 1965). That test has teeth. “Appellate standing in\nbankruptcy cases is more limited than Article III standing or the prudential requirements\nassociated therewith.” Harker v. Troutman (In re Troutman Enters., Inc.), 286 F.3d 359, 364\n(6th Cir. 2002).\n\n In 1978, however, Congress’s rewrite of the Bankruptcy Code deleted the person-\naggrieved text from the statute authorizing appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). Despite this\nchange, federal courts (including our own) have continued to apply the person-aggrieved test “as\na matter of judge-made law.” Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. L.T. Ruth Coal Co. (In re L.T. Ruth\nCoal Co.), No. 85-5990, 1986 WL 17769, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 1986); Westwood, 293 F.3d at\n1334–35 (citing cases); In re Troutman Enters., 286 F.3d at 364–65. What is the source of\nauthority for courts to apply this gloss on § 158(a)? Courts have characterized the test as\n“a prudential prerequisite to standing,” Westwood, 293 F.3d at 1335 n.3, resting on the “need for\nan explicit limitation on standing to appeal in bankruptcy proceedings,” Fondiller v. Robertson\n(In re Fondiller), 707 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983). At one time, this reasoning might have\nbeen viewed as a garden-variety application of the Supreme Court’s cases authorizing “judicially\nself-imposed limits” on jurisdiction. Allen, 468 U.S. at 751.\n\n Then came Lexmark. Interpreting the Lanham Act’s cause of action for parties harmed\nby false advertising, the Court distanced itself from prudential standing. 572 U.S. at 125. In that\ncase, the plaintiff’s lost commercial sales qualified as an Article III injury, so the defendant\n\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 7\n\n\nargued that the Court “should decline to adjudicate [the plaintiff’s] claim on grounds that are\n‘prudential,’ rather than constitutional.” Id. at 125–26. Lexmark rejected the request. It recalled\nthe duty of federal courts to decide cases within their jurisdiction. Id. at 126; Cohens v. Virginia,\n19 U.S. 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.). And it clarified that prior decisions invoking the\n“prudential standing” label had really asked a statutory-interpretation question: Does the specific\nstatute give the specific plaintiff a right to bring the specific suit? Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 128. If\nthe statute does so, courts lack discretion to decline to hear the claim: Just as courts do not have\na “prudential” license to open the courthouse doors when the statutory text has closed them,\nLexmark reasoned, so too they lack a “prudential” license to close the courthouse doors when the\nstatutory text has opened them. Id. (citing Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286–87 (2001)).\n\n Our court has yet to consider Lexmark’s effect, if any, on the person-aggrieved test\ngoverning prudential standing in bankruptcy appeals. Without citing Lexmark, we have found\nthat test met in one case (so Lexmark likely did not matter to the outcome), Brown v. Ellmann (In\nre Brown), 851 F.3d 619, 623–24 (6th Cir. 2017), and we have found the test unsatisfied in an\nunpublished case, Cotter v. Stevenson (In re Cotter), No. 16-1449, 2017 WL 8236168, at *1 (6th\nCir. Mar. 1, 2017). Looking outside our circuit, one court has said that the person-aggrieved test\ncomports with Lexmark, albeit with limited explanation. U.S. Bank v. SFR Investments Pool 1,\nLLC (In re Petrone), 754 F. App’x 590, 591 (9th Cir. 2019). Another has flagged this issue, but\nsidestepped it by resolving the appeal on Article III grounds. Arlington Capital, LLC v. Bainton\nMcCarthy LLC (In re GT Automation Grp., Inc.), 828 F.3d 602, 604–05 & n.1 (7th Cir. 2016).\n\n 3. Schier’s Article III Standing To Appeal. These questions concerning “standing” in\nbankruptcy courts and bankruptcy appeals may eventually need answers. But this is not the case\nto provide them. We take a third route to the case’s resolution—the route taken by the Seventh\nCircuit in GT Automation. Whether or not parties must satisfy Article III rules in non-Article III\ncourts and whether or not they must satisfy even stricter standing rules in appeals to Article III\ncourts, parties must at least satisfy Article III rules in appeals to Article III courts. As the\nSupreme Court has explained, Article III “standing ‘must be met by persons seeking appellate\nreview, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance.’” Hollingsworth v.\nPerry, 570 U.S. 693, 705 (2013) (quoting Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S. at 64);\n\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 8\n\n\nDiamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986). By way of analogy, parties that file “appeals from\nadministrative agencies” must satisfy Article III standing when entering Article III courts.\nConsumer Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research Found., 753 F.3d 1258, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2014)\n(citing Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 899 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). Parties that file appeals from\nbankruptcy courts must do the same. See GT Automation, 828 F.3d at 604–05 & n.1.\n\n An Article III injury includes well-known ingredients. “To establish injury in fact, a\nplaintiff must show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is\n‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Spokeo,\n136 S. Ct. at 1548 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). A particularized injury affects the party in a\nspecific way (in contrast to a generalized grievance), and a concrete injury affects the party in a\nreal way (in contrast to an abstract grievance). Id. at 1548–49. On appeal, moreover, “the focus\nshifts to injury caused by the judgment rather than injury caused by the underlying facts.”\n15A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3902 (2d ed.), Westlaw\n(database updated Apr. 2019); see ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617–18 (1989).\n\n Here, Schier has not shown that it suffered an Article III injury from the bankruptcy\ncourt’s order approving the trustee’s final report, despite the report’s failure to list Capital\nContracting’s appeal rights in the Longhorn litigation. To begin with, the failure to list those\nrights could not financially harm Schier. By that point, Schier had settled with the trustee and\nwithdrawn its attorney’s fees claim. Even assuming, for example, that the proposed appeal\nwould reduce Longhorn’s state-court judgment to zero, that reversal could not provide Schier\nwith one cent more in attorney’s fees. The order thus did not affect Schier in a “‘personal and\nindividual way.’” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548 (citation omitted).\n\n That leaves Schier—the law firm for the losing party in the state-court litigation—with\nthe strong feelings that it developed over the validity of its proposed appeal. But “‘[t]he\npresence of a disagreement, however sharp and acrimonious it may be, is insufficient by itself to\nmeet [Article] III’s requirements.’” Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 704 (quoting Diamond, 476 U.S.\nat 62). The Supreme Court has taught that Article III courts are not the place for “‘concerned\nbystanders’” to vindicate “‘value interests.’” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for\nSeparation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 473 (1982) (citation omitted). If that principle\n\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 9\n\n\nis broad enough to rebut private parties who desire to defend the constitutionality of a state’s\nlaws, Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 704, it is broad enough to rebut Schier’s attempt to vindicate its\nunderstanding of the state laws that would be at issue in the state-court appeal.\n\n Schier’s responses do not change things. The firm initially presents a full-throated\nargument on the merits, claiming that it need not establish standing because the Bankruptcy\nCode required the trustee and the bankruptcy court to fix the final report’s purported error on\ntheir own initiative. This does nothing to exempt Schier from the Article III injury requirement.\nSchier may not assert merely the “vindication of the rule of law” as its basis for harm without\nalleging an actual injury from the purported violation. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 106. Or, to look at\nthe question from the remedy side, Schier’s “psychic satisfaction” that the bankruptcy “laws are\nfaithfully enforced” “is not an acceptable Article III remedy because it does not redress a\ncognizable Article III injury.” Id. at 107. In short, “an asserted right to have the Government act\nin accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court.”\nAllen, 468 U.S. at 754. That rule covers the alleged violation that Schier claims here.\n\n Schier next asserts that the justiciability rules in Michigan state court would allow it to\npursue the appeal under a public-rights theory of standing given the type of claims that it seeks to\nraise in the state appellate courts. That is beside the point. “[T]he constraints of Article III do\nnot apply to state courts, and accordingly the state courts are not bound by the limitations of a\ncase or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability.” ASARCO, 490 U.S. at 617. Even\nassuming that Schier could bring a claim or pursue an appeal in state court without the need to\nshow a concrete and particularized injury, that claim does nothing to establish such an injury in\nan Article III court. Cf. GT Automation, 828 F.3d at 605. The purported loss of a generalized\ngrievance is still just a generalized grievance.\n\n Indeed, the trustee argues that Schier’s allegations of injury are so lacking that we should\nfind this appeal frivolous and award damages under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. We\ndecline the invitation. See Hogan v. Jacobson, 823 F.3d 872, 886 (6th Cir. 2016). We add that\nthe rule requires “a separately filed motion” by an appellee seeking damages for a frivolous\nappeal, “or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond.” Fed. R. App. P. 38.\n\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 10\n\n\nStatements made in an appellee’s brief do not provide sufficient notice to the appellant.\nSee Jodway v. Fifth Third Bank (In re Jodway), 719 F. App’x 502, 506 (6th Cir. 2018).\n\n We affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing Schier’s appeal.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: In RE: CAPITAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, Debtor. Carl F. Schier PLC, Appellant, v. Kenneth A. Nathan, Trustee, Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-21\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0098p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n IN RE: CAPITAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, ┐\\n Debtor. │\\n ___________________________________________ │\\n │\\n CARL F. SCHIER PLC, > No. 18-2219\\n Appellant, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. │\\n │\\n KENNETH A. NATHAN, Trustee, │\\n Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:18-cv-11227—Denise Page Hood, Chief District Judge.\\n\\n United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit;\\n No. 2:14-bk-58920—Mark A. Randon, Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 21, 2019\\n\\n Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Carl F. Schier, CARL F. SCHIER PLC, Ypsilanti, Michigan, for Appellant.\\nHoward S. Sher, JACOB & WEINGARTEN, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Explaining that “jurisdiction” “is a word of many, too many,\\nmeanings,” the Supreme Court in recent years has criticized the cavalier way in which earlier\\ncases invoked the term. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 510 (2006) (citation omitted).\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 2\\n\\n\\nThe Court has sought to clarify the divide between truly jurisdictional requirements (those that\\nconcern whether a court has the power to resolve a dispute) and non-jurisdictional merits\\nrequirements (those that concern whether a party has asserted a valid claim). Id. at 510–12. The\\ndecision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118\\n(2014)—which jettisoned the label “prudential standing”—suggests that the Court has started\\ndown the same path for the word “standing.” Id. at 125. In this case, a bankruptcy court held\\nthat a law firm lacked standing to object to a trustee’s final report in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy\\ncase, and the district court held that the firm also lacked standing to appeal under a test tailored\\nto bankruptcy appeals. Given the post-Lexmark uncertainty about various standing concepts, we\\nhold that the firm lacked the one type of standing that Lexmark undoubtedly does not affect:\\nArticle III standing. We affirm the district court’s order dismissing the appeal on that basis.\\n\\n I\\n\\n Carl F. Schier PLC represented Capital Contracting Co. in a suit filed by Longhorn\\nEstates, LLC, in Michigan state court. The litigation did not turn out well for Capital\\nContracting. It was hit with over a $5-million judgment and landed in bankruptcy a month later.\\nIts proceedings under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code stayed its litigation against Longhorn\\nwith post-trial motions pending. But that state-court judgment turned Longhorn into Capital\\nContracting’s biggest creditor, so Longhorn filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings. When\\nSchier also filed a claim for unpaid legal fees owed by Capital Contracting, the trustee\\nrepresenting the estate countered with a malpractice suit against Schier for its handling of the\\nLonghorn litigation. The trustee and Schier eventually settled. Schier agreed to pay the estate\\n$600,000 and to withdraw its attorney’s fees claim; the trustee released Schier of further\\nmalpractice liability. The bankruptcy court approved this settlement, and Schier formally\\nwithdrew its claim. All’s well that ends well.\\n\\n Or so it seemed. When the trustee filed a final report detailing the distribution of Capital\\nContracting’s assets, 11 U.S.C. § 704(a)(9), Schier reemerged with an objection. The firm\\nalleged that Capital Contracting’s right to appeal the state-court judgment in the Longhorn suit\\nqualified as an “asset” of the estate that the trustee should have administered or abandoned. Cf.\\nCroft v. Lowry (In re Croft), 737 F.3d 372, 376–77 (5th Cir. 2013). The bankruptcy court\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 3\\n\\n\\noverruled Schier’s objection and approved the final report. It explained that Schier should have\\nraised this issue by objecting to Longhorn’s claim when Schier had a pending fees request—a\\npoint in time at which Schier remained a “creditor” with “standing.” Because Schier had\\nwithdrawn its claim for attorney’s fees, the bankruptcy court continued, the firm failed to qualify\\nas a “party in interest” with a “pecuniary interest or stake in the outcome,” and did not “have\\nstanding to object to the trustee’s final report and account.”\\n\\n Schier appealed to the district court. The district court dismissed its appeal on a related\\nbut distinct “standing” ground—that Schier lacked standing to appeal. “It is well-established\\nlaw,” the district court reasoned, that “[i]n order to have standing to appeal a bankruptcy court\\norder, an appellant must have been directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by the order.”\\nCarl F. Schier, PLC v. Nathan (In re Capital Contracting Co.), No. 18-11227, 2018 WL\\n4492240, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). This “person-\\naggrieved” test for appeals, the district court continued, demands more than Article III standing.\\nId. The court concluded that Schier could not meet that test because its “direct and immediate\\ninterest in the bankruptcy proceeding ceased when” it withdrew its attorney’s fees claim. Id.\\n\\n II\\n\\n This case’s many “standing”-related issues would make it worthy of inclusion in a final\\nexam for a federal-courts class. As a refresher, Article III of the Constitution delegates the\\n“judicial Power” to the Supreme Court and any “inferior Courts” that Congress may create, and\\nit allows these courts to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, §§ 1–2. For a\\nsuit to qualify as a “case” falling within Article III, the party who seeks relief must have\\nstanding. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 101–04 (1998). This Article III\\nstanding requires a party to have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the\\nchallenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial\\ndecision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). In addition to Article III’s\\nstanding floor, the Supreme Court also once adopted “judicially self-imposed limits on the\\nexercise of federal jurisdiction” that Article III otherwise would permit. Allen v. Wright, 468\\nU.S. 737, 751 (1984). While the Court used to refer to these limits collectively as the\\n“‘prudential’ branch of standing,” it has since called that generic label “misleading” because\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 4\\n\\n\\neach of these limits raises distinct questions. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components,\\nInc., 572 U.S. 118, 125–28 & nn.3–4 (2014). In this case, the differing rationales of the\\nbankruptcy court and the district court implicate these varied “standing” doctrines.\\n\\n 1. Schier’s Standing To Object. The bankruptcy court found that Schier lacked\\n“standing” to object to the trustee’s report. Did it mean Article III standing? Bankruptcy courts\\nare not Article III courts, Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 469 (2011), so that conclusion would\\nraise an interesting question addressed by few cases: Must parties who appear in non-Article III\\nbankruptcy courts meet the justiciability requirements that apply in Article III courts?\\n\\n Some have said that the Constitution imposes Article III’s rules on bankruptcy courts\\nbecause they are “adjunct[s]” of district courts. Bucchino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re\\nBucchino), 439 B.R. 761, 768 n.10 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2010); see also Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld (In re\\nRosenfeld), 698 F. App’x 300, 303 (6th Cir. 2017); but cf. Stern, 564 U.S. at 500–01. This\\nconstitutional view of the bankruptcy court’s use of the word “standing” would raise other\\nsubsidiary questions. What time should a court examine when assessing whether Schier has\\nsuffered an Article III injury—when it filed a proof of claim (for attorney’s fees) or when it\\nmade the relevant objection (to the final report)? Cf. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.\\n555, 569 n.4 (1992). And because Schier settled in between those events, has this constitutional\\nstanding inquiry really turned into a constitutional mootness inquiry? See Arizonans for Official\\nEnglish v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997).\\n\\n Others have stated that “[b]ankruptcy courts are not Article III creatures bound by\\ntraditional standing requirements,” which means that courts should ask only whether a party has\\nsatisfied the standing-esque requirements that the Bankruptcy Code codifies as a statutory\\nmatter. Furlough v. Cage (In re Technicool Sys., Inc.), 896 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2018).\\nLexmark shunned the label “prudential standing,” so it may be a “misnomer” to lump these\\nstatutory requirements together under the rubric “bankruptcy standing.” In re C.P. Hall Co.,\\n750 F.3d 659, 660 (7th Cir. 2014). Instead of creating a jurisdictional question (about the power\\nof the court to decide an issue), these requirements may create a merits question (about whether\\nthe Bankruptcy Code’s text gives the specific party a right to raise the specific objection). Id. at\\n661. The bankruptcy court’s reasoning in this case could be read this way. It suggested that\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 5\\n\\n\\nSchier did not qualify as a “party in interest,” and a bankruptcy rule notes that the final report in\\na Chapter 7 case creates a presumption that the estate has been fully administered if “no\\nobjection has been filed by . . . a party in interest” within 30 days. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5009(a).\\n\\n Yet this statutory view of the bankruptcy court’s use of the word “standing” also raises\\ntricky issues. For one thing, we have not located a specific statutory provision (apart from the\\nnon-substantive rule) indicating that a “party in interest” (or anyone else) may object to final\\nreports in Chapter 7 cases. Nor have we found a general statutory provision allowing “parties in\\ninterest” to make universal objections. The Bankruptcy Code instead uses the phrase “party in\\ninterest” at distinct places, including in a statutory list of “parties in interest” who may appear\\nand raise an issue in Chapter 11 proceedings, 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b), a provision identifying who\\nmay object to a claim, id. § 502(a), and a provision identifying who may ask the court to convert\\na Chapter 7 case into a Chapter 11 case, id. § 706(b). While some have read the Chapter 11\\ncatch-all in § 1109(b) as impliedly applicable to Chapter 7, Westwood Cmty. Two Ass’n v.\\nBarbee (In re Westwood Cmty. Two Ass’n), 293 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002), we have yet to\\ncross that Rubicon.\\n\\n For another, courts have debated whether this party-in-interest language demands only\\nArticle III standing, In re Global Indus. Techs., Inc., 645 F.3d 201, 211 (3d Cir. 2011), or a more\\ndirect interest, Hughes v. Tower Park Props., LLC (In re Tower Park Props., LLC), 803 F.3d\\n450, 457 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2015). Our court has given little analysis on the meaning of this phrase.\\nSee Jahn v. Burke (In re Burke), 863 F.3d 521, 525–27 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n\\n For a third, if the question whether the Bankruptcy Code allows Schier to object to the\\nreport raises a merits issue, Article III courts may not be able to answer the question on appeal\\nwithout first confirming their own jurisdiction, including Article III standing. Steel Co.,\\n523 U.S. at 93–101; compare Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 128 n.4, with Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527\\nU.S. 815, 831 (1999).\\n\\n 2. Schier’s Bankruptcy Standing To Appeal. We could avoid these questions over the\\nbankruptcy court’s use of the word “standing” by taking the district court’s route to this case’s\\nresolution. It dismissed Schier’s appeal because the firm lacked standing under the person-\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 6\\n\\n\\naggrieved test governing bankruptcy appeals. Schier, 2018 WL 4492240, at *2. That test once\\nfollowed the Bankruptcy Code’s text. In 1898, Congress gave duties to bankruptcy “referees”\\n(predecessors to bankruptcy judges) and later allowed a “person aggrieved” to petition for\\njudicial review of a referee’s order. 11 U.S.C. § 67(c) (1976); Bankruptcy Act of 1938, Pub. L.\\n75-696, 52 Stat. 840, 858 (1938). A phrase like “person aggrieved” has long been a “term of art”\\nsignifying who may challenge agency actions. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,\\nDep’t of Labor v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U.S. 122, 126 (1995). In\\nthe bankruptcy context, courts read the phrase to require a party to “be directly and adversely\\naffected pecuniarily by the order of the referee which is challenged.” Hartman Corp. of Am. v.\\nUnited States, 304 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1962); see Miller v. Gosline (In re Sunningdale\\nCountry Club), 351 F.2d 139, 143 (6th Cir. 1965). That test has teeth. “Appellate standing in\\nbankruptcy cases is more limited than Article III standing or the prudential requirements\\nassociated therewith.” Harker v. Troutman (In re Troutman Enters., Inc.), 286 F.3d 359, 364\\n(6th Cir. 2002).\\n\\n In 1978, however, Congress’s rewrite of the Bankruptcy Code deleted the person-\\naggrieved text from the statute authorizing appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). Despite this\\nchange, federal courts (including our own) have continued to apply the person-aggrieved test “as\\na matter of judge-made law.” Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. L.T. Ruth Coal Co. (In re L.T. Ruth\\nCoal Co.), No. 85-5990, 1986 WL 17769, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 1986); Westwood, 293 F.3d at\\n1334–35 (citing cases); In re Troutman Enters., 286 F.3d at 364–65. What is the source of\\nauthority for courts to apply this gloss on § 158(a)? Courts have characterized the test as\\n“a prudential prerequisite to standing,” Westwood, 293 F.3d at 1335 n.3, resting on the “need for\\nan explicit limitation on standing to appeal in bankruptcy proceedings,” Fondiller v. Robertson\\n(In re Fondiller), 707 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983). At one time, this reasoning might have\\nbeen viewed as a garden-variety application of the Supreme Court’s cases authorizing “judicially\\nself-imposed limits” on jurisdiction. Allen, 468 U.S. at 751.\\n\\n Then came Lexmark. Interpreting the Lanham Act’s cause of action for parties harmed\\nby false advertising, the Court distanced itself from prudential standing. 572 U.S. at 125. In that\\ncase, the plaintiff’s lost commercial sales qualified as an Article III injury, so the defendant\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 7\\n\\n\\nargued that the Court “should decline to adjudicate [the plaintiff’s] claim on grounds that are\\n‘prudential,’ rather than constitutional.” Id. at 125–26. Lexmark rejected the request. It recalled\\nthe duty of federal courts to decide cases within their jurisdiction. Id. at 126; Cohens v. Virginia,\\n19 U.S. 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.). And it clarified that prior decisions invoking the\\n“prudential standing” label had really asked a statutory-interpretation question: Does the specific\\nstatute give the specific plaintiff a right to bring the specific suit? Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 128. If\\nthe statute does so, courts lack discretion to decline to hear the claim: Just as courts do not have\\na “prudential” license to open the courthouse doors when the statutory text has closed them,\\nLexmark reasoned, so too they lack a “prudential” license to close the courthouse doors when the\\nstatutory text has opened them. Id. (citing Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286–87 (2001)).\\n\\n Our court has yet to consider Lexmark’s effect, if any, on the person-aggrieved test\\ngoverning prudential standing in bankruptcy appeals. Without citing Lexmark, we have found\\nthat test met in one case (so Lexmark likely did not matter to the outcome), Brown v. Ellmann (In\\nre Brown), 851 F.3d 619, 623–24 (6th Cir. 2017), and we have found the test unsatisfied in an\\nunpublished case, Cotter v. Stevenson (In re Cotter), No. 16-1449, 2017 WL 8236168, at *1 (6th\\nCir. Mar. 1, 2017). Looking outside our circuit, one court has said that the person-aggrieved test\\ncomports with Lexmark, albeit with limited explanation. U.S. Bank v. SFR Investments Pool 1,\\nLLC (In re Petrone), 754 F. App’x 590, 591 (9th Cir. 2019). Another has flagged this issue, but\\nsidestepped it by resolving the appeal on Article III grounds. Arlington Capital, LLC v. Bainton\\nMcCarthy LLC (In re GT Automation Grp., Inc.), 828 F.3d 602, 604–05 & n.1 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n\\n 3. Schier’s Article III Standing To Appeal. These questions concerning “standing” in\\nbankruptcy courts and bankruptcy appeals may eventually need answers. But this is not the case\\nto provide them. We take a third route to the case’s resolution—the route taken by the Seventh\\nCircuit in GT Automation. Whether or not parties must satisfy Article III rules in non-Article III\\ncourts and whether or not they must satisfy even stricter standing rules in appeals to Article III\\ncourts, parties must at least satisfy Article III rules in appeals to Article III courts. As the\\nSupreme Court has explained, Article III “standing ‘must be met by persons seeking appellate\\nreview, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance.’” Hollingsworth v.\\nPerry, 570 U.S. 693, 705 (2013) (quoting Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S. at 64);\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 8\\n\\n\\nDiamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986). By way of analogy, parties that file “appeals from\\nadministrative agencies” must satisfy Article III standing when entering Article III courts.\\nConsumer Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research Found., 753 F.3d 1258, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2014)\\n(citing Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 899 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). Parties that file appeals from\\nbankruptcy courts must do the same. See GT Automation, 828 F.3d at 604–05 & n.1.\\n\\n An Article III injury includes well-known ingredients. “To establish injury in fact, a\\nplaintiff must show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is\\n‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Spokeo,\\n136 S. Ct. at 1548 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). A particularized injury affects the party in a\\nspecific way (in contrast to a generalized grievance), and a concrete injury affects the party in a\\nreal way (in contrast to an abstract grievance). Id. at 1548–49. On appeal, moreover, “the focus\\nshifts to injury caused by the judgment rather than injury caused by the underlying facts.”\\n15A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3902 (2d ed.), Westlaw\\n(database updated Apr. 2019); see ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617–18 (1989).\\n\\n Here, Schier has not shown that it suffered an Article III injury from the bankruptcy\\ncourt’s order approving the trustee’s final report, despite the report’s failure to list Capital\\nContracting’s appeal rights in the Longhorn litigation. To begin with, the failure to list those\\nrights could not financially harm Schier. By that point, Schier had settled with the trustee and\\nwithdrawn its attorney’s fees claim. Even assuming, for example, that the proposed appeal\\nwould reduce Longhorn’s state-court judgment to zero, that reversal could not provide Schier\\nwith one cent more in attorney’s fees. The order thus did not affect Schier in a “‘personal and\\nindividual way.’” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548 (citation omitted).\\n\\n That leaves Schier—the law firm for the losing party in the state-court litigation—with\\nthe strong feelings that it developed over the validity of its proposed appeal. But “‘[t]he\\npresence of a disagreement, however sharp and acrimonious it may be, is insufficient by itself to\\nmeet [Article] III’s requirements.’” Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 704 (quoting Diamond, 476 U.S.\\nat 62). The Supreme Court has taught that Article III courts are not the place for “‘concerned\\nbystanders’” to vindicate “‘value interests.’” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for\\nSeparation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 473 (1982) (citation omitted). If that principle\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 9\\n\\n\\nis broad enough to rebut private parties who desire to defend the constitutionality of a state’s\\nlaws, Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 704, it is broad enough to rebut Schier’s attempt to vindicate its\\nunderstanding of the state laws that would be at issue in the state-court appeal.\\n\\n Schier’s responses do not change things. The firm initially presents a full-throated\\nargument on the merits, claiming that it need not establish standing because the Bankruptcy\\nCode required the trustee and the bankruptcy court to fix the final report’s purported error on\\ntheir own initiative. This does nothing to exempt Schier from the Article III injury requirement.\\nSchier may not assert merely the “vindication of the rule of law” as its basis for harm without\\nalleging an actual injury from the purported violation. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 106. Or, to look at\\nthe question from the remedy side, Schier’s “psychic satisfaction” that the bankruptcy “laws are\\nfaithfully enforced” “is not an acceptable Article III remedy because it does not redress a\\ncognizable Article III injury.” Id. at 107. In short, “an asserted right to have the Government act\\nin accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court.”\\nAllen, 468 U.S. at 754. That rule covers the alleged violation that Schier claims here.\\n\\n Schier next asserts that the justiciability rules in Michigan state court would allow it to\\npursue the appeal under a public-rights theory of standing given the type of claims that it seeks to\\nraise in the state appellate courts. That is beside the point. “[T]he constraints of Article III do\\nnot apply to state courts, and accordingly the state courts are not bound by the limitations of a\\ncase or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability.” ASARCO, 490 U.S. at 617. Even\\nassuming that Schier could bring a claim or pursue an appeal in state court without the need to\\nshow a concrete and particularized injury, that claim does nothing to establish such an injury in\\nan Article III court. Cf. GT Automation, 828 F.3d at 605. The purported loss of a generalized\\ngrievance is still just a generalized grievance.\\n\\n Indeed, the trustee argues that Schier’s allegations of injury are so lacking that we should\\nfind this appeal frivolous and award damages under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. We\\ndecline the invitation. See Hogan v. Jacobson, 823 F.3d 872, 886 (6th Cir. 2016). We add that\\nthe rule requires “a separately filed motion” by an appellee seeking damages for a frivolous\\nappeal, “or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond.” Fed. R. App. P. 38.\\n\\f No. 18-2219 In re Capital Contracting Co. Page 10\\n\\n\\nStatements made in an appellee’s brief do not provide sufficient notice to the appellant.\\nSee Jodway v. Fifth Third Bank (In re Jodway), 719 F. App’x 502, 506 (6th Cir. 2018).\\n\\n We affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing Schier’s appeal.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2086,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4622290,"string":"4,622,290"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Aundre DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Aundre Davis"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-22"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3031/3145"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Clay, Griffin, Stranch\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0099p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > Nos. 18-3031/3145\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n AUNDRE DAVIS, │\\n Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.\\n No. 3:16-cr-00107-4—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: March 14, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 22, 2019\\n\\n Before: CLAY, GRIFFIN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Jeffrey P. Nunnari, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Laura McMullen\\nFord, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee/Cross-\\nAppellant. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey P. Nunnari, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Laura\\nMcMullen Ford, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for\\nAppellee/Cross-Appellant.\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. After a jury trial, Aundre Davis was convicted of\\nsix counts relating to the sex trafficking of a minor. He was involved in helping to arrange for a\\n16-year-old girl, “S.S.,” to engage in acts of prostitution over three days in January 2016.\\n\\n On appeal, Davis challenges only the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. He\\nargues that the district court erred in grouping his offense conduct into three groups under the\\nSentencing Guidelines, rather than a single group, because his conduct involved a single scheme,\\nwith a single victim, over a short period of time. He also argues that there was insufficient\\nevidence to support a specific-offense enhancement for exercising “undue influence” over a\\nminor. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM as to the grouping of Davis’s offense conduct\\nbut VACATE the sentence and REMAND for the district court to make factual findings relating\\nto the undue-influence enhancement and resentence Davis. Our disposition of Davis’s appeal\\nmoots the Government’s cross-appeal.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n A. The Events of January 2016\\n\\n The facts of this case relate to the prostitution of a 16-year-old, S.S., and her 23-year-old\\nsister. Davis’s co-defendant, Lorenzo Young, contacted S.S. on Facebook in October 2015 to\\nask if S.S. and her sister were still trading sex for drugs. S.S. initially said no but, after relapsing,\\ncontacted Young in January 2016 to obtain money to buy drugs. Young said he would arrange a\\nclient for her. S.S.’s sister also spoke to Young about prostituting herself.\\n\\n On January 25, 2016, S.S. and her sister drove to meet Young because he said he had a\\nfriend or friends who would pay money for sex. It was initially unclear to S.S. whether Young\\nhad arranged a client for just her sister or one for her as well, but she testified that she was\\nwilling to engage in prostitution to get money to buy drugs. When they arrived, Davis was also\\npresent. Both men got in the car with S.S. and her sister. Davis commented to S.S. that she\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 3\\n\\n\\nlooked young, and S.S.’s sister responded, “she’s 17.” Young then directed S.S.’s sister to drive\\nto Fort Wayne, Indiana. S.S. engaged in an act of prostitution that night, splitting the proceeds\\nwith Young.\\n\\n S.S.’s sister drove S.S. back to Ohio the next morning. S.S.’s sister then went back to\\nFort Wayne, with Davis in the car, after picking up some drugs. That evening, S.S.’s sister drove\\nto pick S.S. up and brought her back to Fort Wayne. Davis was in the car again. S.S. engaged in\\nsex acts for money. She also had sex with Davis. The next day, S.S. and her sister went home to\\nOhio.\\n\\n By January 29, two days later, S.S. again needed money to buy drugs. She first asked her\\nmother because she did not want to engage in prostitution again, but her mother turned her down.\\nS.S. called Davis because she was thinking of selling sex to get money for drugs. S.S.’s mother\\nthen offered to pay for drugs and rented a motel room for the two of them. But when Davis\\ncontacted S.S. to tell her he had arranged for a client, she told him to direct the client to her room\\nand told him where she was staying. After she was done with this client, Young and Davis came\\nfor their half of the money. Davis told S.S. that he had another client for her, but she refused\\nbecause she “had had [her] fill and had money” and she “initially didn’t really want to do the\\nfirst one anyway.”\\n\\n B. The Sentencing Proceedings\\n\\n Davis was convicted after a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to engage in sex\\ntrafficking of a minor, two counts of transportation of a minor with intent to engage in\\nprostitution, and three counts of sex trafficking of a minor. He was acquitted of obstruction of a\\nsex-trafficking investigation.\\n\\n In the presentence report, the United States Probation Office calculated Davis’s adjusted\\noffense level as 41 and his criminal history category as IV, which resulted in an advisory\\nGuidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. Both the Government and the defense\\nobjected to these calculations. As relevant here, the Government argued that Davis’s offense\\nconduct should be separated into three groups—one for each day of prostitution—rather than one\\ngroup. The Government also argued that Davis’s offense level should be enhanced by two levels\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 4\\n\\n\\nbased on his obstruction of justice by breaking his phone. The defense argued that Davis’s\\noffense level should not be enhanced by two levels for exerting “undue influence” over S.S.\\nbecause, despite the difference in age, S.S. was a “willing participant[] in . . . commercial sex\\nacts” and there was “no direct evidence of undue influence.”\\n\\n In a victim-impact letter, quoted in the presentence report, S.S. expressed that she\\n“initially was willing to participate in these acts of prostitution to support [her] drug addiction.”\\nYet she also alleged that Young and Davis took “advantage of the fact that they knew [her] mind\\nwas altered due to drug use, and also being so young [she] was naïve and lacked discernment in\\n[her] decision making. . . . [A]t times when [she] was unsure or uncomfortable continuing in\\ndoing the acts of prostitution they would pressure [her] to do them and [she] gave in.”\\n\\n At the initial sentencing hearing, the district court overruled Davis’s objection to the\\nundue-influence enhancement, relying principally on the rebuttable presumption that this\\nenhancement applies if there is at least a ten-year difference in age. The court stated: “Here\\nthere’s approximately a 16[-]year age gap between the minor and the defendant. . . . The\\ndefendant does not offer much, if anything, by way of rebutting that presumption. This Court\\nadopts the argument set forth by the government in its sentencing memorandum and, again, relies\\nupon Willoughby.”1\\n\\n At a subsequent appearance, the district court agreed with the Government that Davis’s\\noffense conduct should be split into three groups rather than kept as one group. Because this\\ngrouping resulted in Davis’s adjusted offense level being greater than the maximum possible\\nlevel, the Government withdrew its request for an obstruction-of-justice enhancement. The court\\ncalculated Davis’s advisory Guidelines range as life imprisonment and orally pronounced a\\nsentence of life imprisonment.\\n\\n The day after this sentencing hearing, however, the district court contacted counsel and\\nindicated that it “was inclined to impose a different sentence than that announced at the hearing.”\\nThe court convened what it called “a continued hearing or a supplemental hearing.” The\\nGovernment objected, arguing that the oral pronouncement of sentence was final “and should\\n\\n 1United States v. Willoughby, 742 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2014).\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 5\\n\\n\\nstand.” Nonetheless, noting that the entry of judgment had not yet been filed, the court decided\\nto vary downwards based on its concern that there was an “unwarranted sentencing disparity”\\nbetween Davis and his co-defendants. It sentenced Davis to 360 months’ imprisonment.\\nA written judgment memorializing this sentence followed.\\n\\n Davis timely appealed the sentence and the Government timely filed a cross-appeal.\\n\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n\\n This court “review[s] a district court’s calculation of the advisory sentencing Guidelines\\nas part of our obligation to determine whether the district court imposed a sentence that is\\nprocedurally unreasonable. In doing so, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear\\nerror and its legal conclusions de novo.” United States v. Angel, 576 F.3d 318, 320 (6th Cir.\\n2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Government must prove by a\\npreponderance of the evidence that a particular sentencing enhancement applies. See id. at 321.\\n A. Grouping of Offense Conduct\\n\\n Davis argues that the district court erred by grouping his offense conduct into three\\ngroups, one for each of the three days in which S.S. engaged in prostitution, rather than one\\ngroup. This grouping resulted in an increase of his Guidelines offense level by three levels.\\n\\n Section 3D1.2 of the Guidelines explains when closely-related counts of conviction\\nshould be grouped together. It instructs courts to group “[a]ll counts involving substantially the\\nsame harm . . . together into a single Group.” USSG § 3D1.2. It further indicates that separate\\ncounts “involve substantially the same harm” when, among other things, they “involve the same\\nvictim and two or more acts or transactions connected by a common criminal objective or\\nconstituting part of a common scheme or plan.” Id. This means that “counts that are part of a\\nsingle course of conduct with a single criminal objective and represent essentially one composite\\nharm to the same victim are to be grouped together.” USSG § 3D1.2, comment. (n.4) (emphasis\\nadded). But if a “defendant is convicted of two counts of rape for raping the same person on\\ndifferent days” then “[t]he counts are not to be grouped together.” Id. Similarly, separate counts\\nof conviction for “robbery of the same victim on different occasions” are not to be grouped\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 6\\n\\n\\ntogether because they “involve[] multiple, separate instances of fear and risk of harm, not one\\ncomposite harm.” Id.\\n\\n In United States v. Bivens, 811 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2016), we applied § 3D1.2 to hold that\\nthe district court was required to separately group at least four of the defendant’s five counts of\\nconviction for child pornography and sex with a minor. Although these counts stemmed from a\\nseveral-month-long relationship with a single child, “all of the relevant counts arose from distinct\\ncrimes in terms of time and injury to the victim.” Id. at 841. Even “[t]he two counts of the same\\nsubstantive crime—producing child pornography—differ[ed] in time, manner, and place.” Id. at\\n842–43. The other counts also involved “‘separate instance[s]’ of harm.” Id. at 843.\\n\\n The same logic applies here, though this case is a closer call than Bivens. Unlike in\\nBivens, Davis’s actions did not involve “an extended period of time,” id. at 843, and instead took\\nplace over the course of only five days. This case also involved “a single course of conduct with\\na single criminal objective”—selling sex with a minor. Nonetheless, each of the three counts of\\nsex trafficking of a minor involved separate instances of harm. Trafficking a minor to engage in\\ncommercial sex acts on multiple days with different clients is analogous to the Guidelines\\nexample of committing rape on different days—even with the same defendant and same victim,\\neach occasion is a separate harm.\\n\\n Because each of the three counts of sex trafficking of a minor relates to a separate day\\nand harm, the commentary to § 3D1.2 dictates that they should be grouped separately. We\\ntherefore affirm the district court’s determination that Davis’s offense conduct should be counted\\nas three groups. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993) (“[C]ommentary in the\\nGuidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the\\nConstitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that\\nguideline.”).\\n\\n B. Undue-Influence Enhancement\\n\\n Davis also argues that the district court erred in imposing a two-level enhancement of his\\nGuidelines offense level for exercising “undue influence” over S.S. He contends that the\\npresumption of undue influence, which applied because he was more than ten years older than\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 7\\n\\n\\nS.S., was rebutted here because “she had engaged in prostitution . . . before Young reached out to\\nher,” and “it was [S.S.] and her sister who reached out to Young to prostitute themselves.” Thus,\\n“she would have engaged in prostitution . . . whether or not Davis ever entered the picture.”\\nDavis also argues that S.S.’s “attribution [in her victim-impact statement] of Davis’s\\n‘knowledge’ of her drug addiction and that he took advantage of it is not supported by the\\nrecord.” The Government responds, essentially, that Davis has failed to rebut the presumption of\\nundue influence.\\n\\n Section 2G1.3 of the Guidelines, which relates to the sex trafficking of minors, requires a\\nsentencing court to increase the defendant’s offense level by two if “a participant otherwise\\nunduly influenced a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.” USSG § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B).\\nThe commentary to this section specifies that “the court should closely consider the facts of the\\ncase to determine whether a participant’s influence over the minor compromised the\\nvoluntariness of the minor’s behavior.” USSG § 2G1.3, comment. (n.3(B)). It further elaborates\\nthat when the defendant “is at least 10 years older than the minor, there shall be a rebuttable\\npresumption that subsection (b)(2)(B) applies. In such a case, some degree of undue influence\\ncan be presumed because of the substantial difference in age between the participant and the\\nminor.” Id.\\n\\n In this case, the district court relied almost exclusively on this rebuttable presumption.\\nIt noted that there was “approximately a 16[-]year age gap” between S.S. and Davis, and then\\nstated that Davis “does not offer much, if anything, by way of rebutting that presumption.”\\nWithout further discussing the facts of this case, the court said only that it was relying on the\\nGovernment’s arguments in its sentencing memorandum and this court’s decision in Willoughby.\\nExplicit factual findings were thus limited to noting the age difference between Davis and S.S.\\n\\n That was insufficient to discharge the responsibility to “closely consider the facts of the\\ncase.” USSG § 2G1.3, comment. (n.3(B)). The age difference between S.S. and Davis means\\nthat there is a rebuttable presumption of undue influence but, by definition, such a presumption\\ncan be rebutted. In cases where there is significant record evidence that undercuts this\\npresumption, such as this one, a district court cannot rely solely on the presumption to determine\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 8\\n\\n\\nthat the defendant has “compromised the voluntariness of the minor’s behavior.” Id.2 On this\\nrecord, instead, the court was required to consider S.S.’s trial testimony that she had previously\\nengaged in prostitution, willingly engaged in prostitution during the events of this case,\\ncontacted the defendants to have them procure her clients, and refused a client procured for her\\nby Davis. The court was also required to consider S.S.’s assertion in her victim-impact letter that\\nDavis pressured her into engaging in acts of prostitution.3\\n\\n For a sentence to be procedurally reasonable, the sentencing court “must adequately\\nexplain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Gall v. United States,\\n552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). Adequate explanation was lacking in this case, especially considering\\nthe Guidelines’ command to “closely consider the facts of the case” when determining whether\\nto apply an undue-influence enhancement. Because the court did not make adequate factual\\nfindings, it “fail[ed] to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. We therefore vacate\\nand remand for resentencing. Given the apparent conflict between S.S.’s trial testimony and her\\nvictim-impact statement, “[t]he district court is best situated to make the necessary factual\\nfindings and conclusions in the first instance.” United States v. Straughter, 950 F.2d 1223, 1234\\n(6th Cir. 1991).\\n\\n C. Finality of Oral Sentence\\n\\n One final issue remains. In its cross-appeal, the Government argues that the district court\\nerred by reconsidering Davis’s sentence after it had pronounced the sentence in open court.\\nIt does not quibble with the reasonableness of the new sentence itself; rather, it claims that the\\ncourt lacked the authority to modify the sentence once it was imposed—and that a sentence is\\nimposed when it is orally pronounced. Davis responds that the court could reconsider its\\n\\n\\n 2Although it may seem inappropriate to describe a minor as voluntarily engaging in prostitution, Guideline\\n§ 2G1.3 pertains solely to commercial sex acts involving minors. And the undue-influence enhancement is a\\nspecific-offense characteristic under § 2G1.3. Accordingly, the structure of the Guidelines indicates that there must\\nbe cases involving the prostitution of minors where this enhancement does not apply.\\n 3We note that the three cases the Government relies on to support the undue-influence enhancement\\ninvolved a defendant causing an underage victim to engage in sex acts that she would not have otherwise engaged in\\nby taking advantage of a romantic relationship, or the victim’s lack of housing or transportation. See United States\\nv. Farmer, 673 F. App’x 518, 520, 524 (6th Cir. 2016); United States v. Reid, 751 F.3d 763, 768 (6th Cir. 2014);\\nWilloughby, 749 F.3d at 241. None of those factors appear to be present here.\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 9\\n\\n\\nsentence because a sentence is imposed when the written judgment is entered. We are inclined\\nto agree with the Government that the court lacked the authority to change its mind and impose a\\ndifferent sentence once it had orally pronounced a sentence in open court.4\\n\\n As the Government conceded at oral argument, however, this issue is moot because we\\nare vacating and remanding for resentencing on the undue-influence-enhancement issue. At this\\nresentencing, the district court is free to impose a sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment—or\\nanother sentence. See United States v. Garcia-Robles, 640 F.3d 159, 164 (6th Cir. 2011)\\n(holding that on a general remand, when a sentence has been vacated on appeal as procedurally\\nunreasonable, the defendant is entitled to a plenary resentencing). We therefore cannot grant the\\nGovernment’s requested relief of remanding for the court to reimpose its initial oral sentence.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the grouping of Davis’s offense conduct,\\nVACATE the sentence, and REMAND for the district court to make factual findings relating to\\nthe undue-influence enhancement and resentence Davis.\\n\\n\\n 418 U.S.C. § 3582(c) provides that the sentencing court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it\\nhas been imposed” except under certain specified circumstances, such as when permitted by Federal Rule of\\nCriminal Procedure 35. Rule 35, in turn, permits a court to reduce a sentence for substantial assistance or to correct\\na clerical error. Because it is undisputed that none of the circumstances listed in § 3582(c) apply, the district court\\ncould change its mind after orally pronouncing sentence in this case only if the term of imprisonment had not yet\\nbeen imposed.\\nWe have not squarely addressed the question of whether a sentence is imposed when it is orally pronounced or when\\nwritten judgment is entered, but we have strongly implied that a sentence is imposed when it is orally pronounced.\\nIn United States v. Arroyo, 434 F.3d 835 (6th Cir. 2006), and then United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743 (6th Cir.\\n2008), this circuit addressed whether a district court could grant a motion for reconsideration of the sentence. In\\nboth cases, the motion was filed after the sentence was orally pronounced but before the entry of written judgment.\\nHouston, 529 F.3d at 747; Arroyo, 434 F.3d at 837. In both instances, we held that the court erred in granting the\\nmotion for reconsideration because the case did not fall within any of the exceptions contained within Rule 35 and\\nthus the court could not modify the term of imprisonment. Houston, 529 F.3d at 748–49; Arroyo, 434 F.3d at 838–\\n39. Indeed, Arroyo noted that Rule 35 “is not intended to afford the court the opportunity to change its mind about\\nthe appropriateness of the sentence.” 434 F.3d at 838 (quoting United States v. Galvan-Perez, 291 F.3d 401, 406\\n(6th Cir. 2002)). Implicit in these holdings is that the sentence was imposed when it was orally pronounced. After\\nall, if the sentence had not yet been imposed, there would be no need to satisfy Rule 35. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)\\n(stating that a court cannot modify a sentence once imposed except under certain circumstances).\\nFurthermore, Rule 35 itself states, “As used in this rule, ‘sentencing’ means the oral announcement of the\\nsentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(c). The advisory committee notes to the 2004 amendments of this rule proclaim that\\nthis provision was added to resolve a circuit split over whether the term “imposition of sentence” means “the oral\\nannouncement of the sentence” or “the entry of the judgment.”\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4399543/\", \"author_raw\": \"JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"CLAY"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFIN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"STRANCH"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4622290/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Aundre DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-22\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0099p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, │\n │\n > Nos. 18-3031/3145\n v. │\n │\n │\n AUNDRE DAVIS, │\n Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.\n No. 3:16-cr-00107-4—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.\n\n Argued: March 14, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 22, 2019\n\n Before: CLAY, GRIFFIN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Jeffrey P. Nunnari, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Laura McMullen\nFord, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee/Cross-\nAppellant. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey P. Nunnari, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Laura\nMcMullen Ford, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for\nAppellee/Cross-Appellant.\n\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 2\n\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. After a jury trial, Aundre Davis was convicted of\nsix counts relating to the sex trafficking of a minor. He was involved in helping to arrange for a\n16-year-old girl, “S.S.,” to engage in acts of prostitution over three days in January 2016.\n\n On appeal, Davis challenges only the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. He\nargues that the district court erred in grouping his offense conduct into three groups under the\nSentencing Guidelines, rather than a single group, because his conduct involved a single scheme,\nwith a single victim, over a short period of time. He also argues that there was insufficient\nevidence to support a specific-offense enhancement for exercising “undue influence” over a\nminor. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM as to the grouping of Davis’s offense conduct\nbut VACATE the sentence and REMAND for the district court to make factual findings relating\nto the undue-influence enhancement and resentence Davis. Our disposition of Davis’s appeal\nmoots the Government’s cross-appeal.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n A. The Events of January 2016\n\n The facts of this case relate to the prostitution of a 16-year-old, S.S., and her 23-year-old\nsister. Davis’s co-defendant, Lorenzo Young, contacted S.S. on Facebook in October 2015 to\nask if S.S. and her sister were still trading sex for drugs. S.S. initially said no but, after relapsing,\ncontacted Young in January 2016 to obtain money to buy drugs. Young said he would arrange a\nclient for her. S.S.’s sister also spoke to Young about prostituting herself.\n\n On January 25, 2016, S.S. and her sister drove to meet Young because he said he had a\nfriend or friends who would pay money for sex. It was initially unclear to S.S. whether Young\nhad arranged a client for just her sister or one for her as well, but she testified that she was\nwilling to engage in prostitution to get money to buy drugs. When they arrived, Davis was also\npresent. Both men got in the car with S.S. and her sister. Davis commented to S.S. that she\n\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 3\n\n\nlooked young, and S.S.’s sister responded, “she’s 17.” Young then directed S.S.’s sister to drive\nto Fort Wayne, Indiana. S.S. engaged in an act of prostitution that night, splitting the proceeds\nwith Young.\n\n S.S.’s sister drove S.S. back to Ohio the next morning. S.S.’s sister then went back to\nFort Wayne, with Davis in the car, after picking up some drugs. That evening, S.S.’s sister drove\nto pick S.S. up and brought her back to Fort Wayne. Davis was in the car again. S.S. engaged in\nsex acts for money. She also had sex with Davis. The next day, S.S. and her sister went home to\nOhio.\n\n By January 29, two days later, S.S. again needed money to buy drugs. She first asked her\nmother because she did not want to engage in prostitution again, but her mother turned her down.\nS.S. called Davis because she was thinking of selling sex to get money for drugs. S.S.’s mother\nthen offered to pay for drugs and rented a motel room for the two of them. But when Davis\ncontacted S.S. to tell her he had arranged for a client, she told him to direct the client to her room\nand told him where she was staying. After she was done with this client, Young and Davis came\nfor their half of the money. Davis told S.S. that he had another client for her, but she refused\nbecause she “had had [her] fill and had money” and she “initially didn’t really want to do the\nfirst one anyway.”\n\n B. The Sentencing Proceedings\n\n Davis was convicted after a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to engage in sex\ntrafficking of a minor, two counts of transportation of a minor with intent to engage in\nprostitution, and three counts of sex trafficking of a minor. He was acquitted of obstruction of a\nsex-trafficking investigation.\n\n In the presentence report, the United States Probation Office calculated Davis’s adjusted\noffense level as 41 and his criminal history category as IV, which resulted in an advisory\nGuidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. Both the Government and the defense\nobjected to these calculations. As relevant here, the Government argued that Davis’s offense\nconduct should be separated into three groups—one for each day of prostitution—rather than one\ngroup. The Government also argued that Davis’s offense level should be enhanced by two levels\n\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 4\n\n\nbased on his obstruction of justice by breaking his phone. The defense argued that Davis’s\noffense level should not be enhanced by two levels for exerting “undue influence” over S.S.\nbecause, despite the difference in age, S.S. was a “willing participant[] in . . . commercial sex\nacts” and there was “no direct evidence of undue influence.”\n\n In a victim-impact letter, quoted in the presentence report, S.S. expressed that she\n“initially was willing to participate in these acts of prostitution to support [her] drug addiction.”\nYet she also alleged that Young and Davis took “advantage of the fact that they knew [her] mind\nwas altered due to drug use, and also being so young [she] was naïve and lacked discernment in\n[her] decision making. . . . [A]t times when [she] was unsure or uncomfortable continuing in\ndoing the acts of prostitution they would pressure [her] to do them and [she] gave in.”\n\n At the initial sentencing hearing, the district court overruled Davis’s objection to the\nundue-influence enhancement, relying principally on the rebuttable presumption that this\nenhancement applies if there is at least a ten-year difference in age. The court stated: “Here\nthere’s approximately a 16[-]year age gap between the minor and the defendant. . . . The\ndefendant does not offer much, if anything, by way of rebutting that presumption. This Court\nadopts the argument set forth by the government in its sentencing memorandum and, again, relies\nupon Willoughby.”1\n\n At a subsequent appearance, the district court agreed with the Government that Davis’s\noffense conduct should be split into three groups rather than kept as one group. Because this\ngrouping resulted in Davis’s adjusted offense level being greater than the maximum possible\nlevel, the Government withdrew its request for an obstruction-of-justice enhancement. The court\ncalculated Davis’s advisory Guidelines range as life imprisonment and orally pronounced a\nsentence of life imprisonment.\n\n The day after this sentencing hearing, however, the district court contacted counsel and\nindicated that it “was inclined to impose a different sentence than that announced at the hearing.”\nThe court convened what it called “a continued hearing or a supplemental hearing.” The\nGovernment objected, arguing that the oral pronouncement of sentence was final “and should\n\n 1United States v. Willoughby, 742 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2014).\n\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 5\n\n\nstand.” Nonetheless, noting that the entry of judgment had not yet been filed, the court decided\nto vary downwards based on its concern that there was an “unwarranted sentencing disparity”\nbetween Davis and his co-defendants. It sentenced Davis to 360 months’ imprisonment.\nA written judgment memorializing this sentence followed.\n\n Davis timely appealed the sentence and the Government timely filed a cross-appeal.\n\n II. ANALYSIS\n\n This court “review[s] a district court’s calculation of the advisory sentencing Guidelines\nas part of our obligation to determine whether the district court imposed a sentence that is\nprocedurally unreasonable. In doing so, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear\nerror and its legal conclusions de novo.” United States v. Angel, 576 F.3d 318, 320 (6th Cir.\n2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Government must prove by a\npreponderance of the evidence that a particular sentencing enhancement applies. See id. at 321.\n A. Grouping of Offense Conduct\n\n Davis argues that the district court erred by grouping his offense conduct into three\ngroups, one for each of the three days in which S.S. engaged in prostitution, rather than one\ngroup. This grouping resulted in an increase of his Guidelines offense level by three levels.\n\n Section 3D1.2 of the Guidelines explains when closely-related counts of conviction\nshould be grouped together. It instructs courts to group “[a]ll counts involving substantially the\nsame harm . . . together into a single Group.” USSG § 3D1.2. It further indicates that separate\ncounts “involve substantially the same harm” when, among other things, they “involve the same\nvictim and two or more acts or transactions connected by a common criminal objective or\nconstituting part of a common scheme or plan.” Id. This means that “counts that are part of a\nsingle course of conduct with a single criminal objective and represent essentially one composite\nharm to the same victim are to be grouped together.” USSG § 3D1.2, comment. (n.4) (emphasis\nadded). But if a “defendant is convicted of two counts of rape for raping the same person on\ndifferent days” then “[t]he counts are not to be grouped together.” Id. Similarly, separate counts\nof conviction for “robbery of the same victim on different occasions” are not to be grouped\n\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 6\n\n\ntogether because they “involve[] multiple, separate instances of fear and risk of harm, not one\ncomposite harm.” Id.\n\n In United States v. Bivens, 811 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2016), we applied § 3D1.2 to hold that\nthe district court was required to separately group at least four of the defendant’s five counts of\nconviction for child pornography and sex with a minor. Although these counts stemmed from a\nseveral-month-long relationship with a single child, “all of the relevant counts arose from distinct\ncrimes in terms of time and injury to the victim.” Id. at 841. Even “[t]he two counts of the same\nsubstantive crime—producing child pornography—differ[ed] in time, manner, and place.” Id. at\n842–43. The other counts also involved “‘separate instance[s]’ of harm.” Id. at 843.\n\n The same logic applies here, though this case is a closer call than Bivens. Unlike in\nBivens, Davis’s actions did not involve “an extended period of time,” id. at 843, and instead took\nplace over the course of only five days. This case also involved “a single course of conduct with\na single criminal objective”—selling sex with a minor. Nonetheless, each of the three counts of\nsex trafficking of a minor involved separate instances of harm. Trafficking a minor to engage in\ncommercial sex acts on multiple days with different clients is analogous to the Guidelines\nexample of committing rape on different days—even with the same defendant and same victim,\neach occasion is a separate harm.\n\n Because each of the three counts of sex trafficking of a minor relates to a separate day\nand harm, the commentary to § 3D1.2 dictates that they should be grouped separately. We\ntherefore affirm the district court’s determination that Davis’s offense conduct should be counted\nas three groups. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993) (“[C]ommentary in the\nGuidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the\nConstitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that\nguideline.”).\n\n B. Undue-Influence Enhancement\n\n Davis also argues that the district court erred in imposing a two-level enhancement of his\nGuidelines offense level for exercising “undue influence” over S.S. He contends that the\npresumption of undue influence, which applied because he was more than ten years older than\n\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 7\n\n\nS.S., was rebutted here because “she had engaged in prostitution . . . before Young reached out to\nher,” and “it was [S.S.] and her sister who reached out to Young to prostitute themselves.” Thus,\n“she would have engaged in prostitution . . . whether or not Davis ever entered the picture.”\nDavis also argues that S.S.’s “attribution [in her victim-impact statement] of Davis’s\n‘knowledge’ of her drug addiction and that he took advantage of it is not supported by the\nrecord.” The Government responds, essentially, that Davis has failed to rebut the presumption of\nundue influence.\n\n Section 2G1.3 of the Guidelines, which relates to the sex trafficking of minors, requires a\nsentencing court to increase the defendant’s offense level by two if “a participant otherwise\nunduly influenced a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.” USSG § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B).\nThe commentary to this section specifies that “the court should closely consider the facts of the\ncase to determine whether a participant’s influence over the minor compromised the\nvoluntariness of the minor’s behavior.” USSG § 2G1.3, comment. (n.3(B)). It further elaborates\nthat when the defendant “is at least 10 years older than the minor, there shall be a rebuttable\npresumption that subsection (b)(2)(B) applies. In such a case, some degree of undue influence\ncan be presumed because of the substantial difference in age between the participant and the\nminor.” Id.\n\n In this case, the district court relied almost exclusively on this rebuttable presumption.\nIt noted that there was “approximately a 16[-]year age gap” between S.S. and Davis, and then\nstated that Davis “does not offer much, if anything, by way of rebutting that presumption.”\nWithout further discussing the facts of this case, the court said only that it was relying on the\nGovernment’s arguments in its sentencing memorandum and this court’s decision in Willoughby.\nExplicit factual findings were thus limited to noting the age difference between Davis and S.S.\n\n That was insufficient to discharge the responsibility to “closely consider the facts of the\ncase.” USSG § 2G1.3, comment. (n.3(B)). The age difference between S.S. and Davis means\nthat there is a rebuttable presumption of undue influence but, by definition, such a presumption\ncan be rebutted. In cases where there is significant record evidence that undercuts this\npresumption, such as this one, a district court cannot rely solely on the presumption to determine\n\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 8\n\n\nthat the defendant has “compromised the voluntariness of the minor’s behavior.” Id.2 On this\nrecord, instead, the court was required to consider S.S.’s trial testimony that she had previously\nengaged in prostitution, willingly engaged in prostitution during the events of this case,\ncontacted the defendants to have them procure her clients, and refused a client procured for her\nby Davis. The court was also required to consider S.S.’s assertion in her victim-impact letter that\nDavis pressured her into engaging in acts of prostitution.3\n\n For a sentence to be procedurally reasonable, the sentencing court “must adequately\nexplain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Gall v. United States,\n552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). Adequate explanation was lacking in this case, especially considering\nthe Guidelines’ command to “closely consider the facts of the case” when determining whether\nto apply an undue-influence enhancement. Because the court did not make adequate factual\nfindings, it “fail[ed] to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. We therefore vacate\nand remand for resentencing. Given the apparent conflict between S.S.’s trial testimony and her\nvictim-impact statement, “[t]he district court is best situated to make the necessary factual\nfindings and conclusions in the first instance.” United States v. Straughter, 950 F.2d 1223, 1234\n(6th Cir. 1991).\n\n C. Finality of Oral Sentence\n\n One final issue remains. In its cross-appeal, the Government argues that the district court\nerred by reconsidering Davis’s sentence after it had pronounced the sentence in open court.\nIt does not quibble with the reasonableness of the new sentence itself; rather, it claims that the\ncourt lacked the authority to modify the sentence once it was imposed—and that a sentence is\nimposed when it is orally pronounced. Davis responds that the court could reconsider its\n\n\n 2Although it may seem inappropriate to describe a minor as voluntarily engaging in prostitution, Guideline\n§ 2G1.3 pertains solely to commercial sex acts involving minors. And the undue-influence enhancement is a\nspecific-offense characteristic under § 2G1.3. Accordingly, the structure of the Guidelines indicates that there must\nbe cases involving the prostitution of minors where this enhancement does not apply.\n 3We note that the three cases the Government relies on to support the undue-influence enhancement\ninvolved a defendant causing an underage victim to engage in sex acts that she would not have otherwise engaged in\nby taking advantage of a romantic relationship, or the victim’s lack of housing or transportation. See United States\nv. Farmer, 673 F. App’x 518, 520, 524 (6th Cir. 2016); United States v. Reid, 751 F.3d 763, 768 (6th Cir. 2014);\nWilloughby, 749 F.3d at 241. None of those factors appear to be present here.\n\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 9\n\n\nsentence because a sentence is imposed when the written judgment is entered. We are inclined\nto agree with the Government that the court lacked the authority to change its mind and impose a\ndifferent sentence once it had orally pronounced a sentence in open court.4\n\n As the Government conceded at oral argument, however, this issue is moot because we\nare vacating and remanding for resentencing on the undue-influence-enhancement issue. At this\nresentencing, the district court is free to impose a sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment—or\nanother sentence. See United States v. Garcia-Robles, 640 F.3d 159, 164 (6th Cir. 2011)\n(holding that on a general remand, when a sentence has been vacated on appeal as procedurally\nunreasonable, the defendant is entitled to a plenary resentencing). We therefore cannot grant the\nGovernment’s requested relief of remanding for the court to reimpose its initial oral sentence.\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the grouping of Davis’s offense conduct,\nVACATE the sentence, and REMAND for the district court to make factual findings relating to\nthe undue-influence enhancement and resentence Davis.\n\n\n 418 U.S.C. § 3582(c) provides that the sentencing court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it\nhas been imposed” except under certain specified circumstances, such as when permitted by Federal Rule of\nCriminal Procedure 35. Rule 35, in turn, permits a court to reduce a sentence for substantial assistance or to correct\na clerical error. Because it is undisputed that none of the circumstances listed in § 3582(c) apply, the district court\ncould change its mind after orally pronouncing sentence in this case only if the term of imprisonment had not yet\nbeen imposed.\nWe have not squarely addressed the question of whether a sentence is imposed when it is orally pronounced or when\nwritten judgment is entered, but we have strongly implied that a sentence is imposed when it is orally pronounced.\nIn United States v. Arroyo, 434 F.3d 835 (6th Cir. 2006), and then United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743 (6th Cir.\n2008), this circuit addressed whether a district court could grant a motion for reconsideration of the sentence. In\nboth cases, the motion was filed after the sentence was orally pronounced but before the entry of written judgment.\nHouston, 529 F.3d at 747; Arroyo, 434 F.3d at 837. In both instances, we held that the court erred in granting the\nmotion for reconsideration because the case did not fall within any of the exceptions contained within Rule 35 and\nthus the court could not modify the term of imprisonment. Houston, 529 F.3d at 748–49; Arroyo, 434 F.3d at 838–\n39. Indeed, Arroyo noted that Rule 35 “is not intended to afford the court the opportunity to change its mind about\nthe appropriateness of the sentence.” 434 F.3d at 838 (quoting United States v. Galvan-Perez, 291 F.3d 401, 406\n(6th Cir. 2002)). Implicit in these holdings is that the sentence was imposed when it was orally pronounced. After\nall, if the sentence had not yet been imposed, there would be no need to satisfy Rule 35. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)\n(stating that a court cannot modify a sentence once imposed except under certain circumstances).\nFurthermore, Rule 35 itself states, “As used in this rule, ‘sentencing’ means the oral announcement of the\nsentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(c). The advisory committee notes to the 2004 amendments of this rule proclaim that\nthis provision was added to resolve a circuit split over whether the term “imposition of sentence” means “the oral\nannouncement of the sentence” or “the entry of the judgment.”\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Aundre DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-22\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0099p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > Nos. 18-3031/3145\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n AUNDRE DAVIS, │\\n Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.\\n No. 3:16-cr-00107-4—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: March 14, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 22, 2019\\n\\n Before: CLAY, GRIFFIN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Jeffrey P. Nunnari, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Laura McMullen\\nFord, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee/Cross-\\nAppellant. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey P. Nunnari, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Laura\\nMcMullen Ford, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for\\nAppellee/Cross-Appellant.\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. After a jury trial, Aundre Davis was convicted of\\nsix counts relating to the sex trafficking of a minor. He was involved in helping to arrange for a\\n16-year-old girl, “S.S.,” to engage in acts of prostitution over three days in January 2016.\\n\\n On appeal, Davis challenges only the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. He\\nargues that the district court erred in grouping his offense conduct into three groups under the\\nSentencing Guidelines, rather than a single group, because his conduct involved a single scheme,\\nwith a single victim, over a short period of time. He also argues that there was insufficient\\nevidence to support a specific-offense enhancement for exercising “undue influence” over a\\nminor. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM as to the grouping of Davis’s offense conduct\\nbut VACATE the sentence and REMAND for the district court to make factual findings relating\\nto the undue-influence enhancement and resentence Davis. Our disposition of Davis’s appeal\\nmoots the Government’s cross-appeal.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n A. The Events of January 2016\\n\\n The facts of this case relate to the prostitution of a 16-year-old, S.S., and her 23-year-old\\nsister. Davis’s co-defendant, Lorenzo Young, contacted S.S. on Facebook in October 2015 to\\nask if S.S. and her sister were still trading sex for drugs. S.S. initially said no but, after relapsing,\\ncontacted Young in January 2016 to obtain money to buy drugs. Young said he would arrange a\\nclient for her. S.S.’s sister also spoke to Young about prostituting herself.\\n\\n On January 25, 2016, S.S. and her sister drove to meet Young because he said he had a\\nfriend or friends who would pay money for sex. It was initially unclear to S.S. whether Young\\nhad arranged a client for just her sister or one for her as well, but she testified that she was\\nwilling to engage in prostitution to get money to buy drugs. When they arrived, Davis was also\\npresent. Both men got in the car with S.S. and her sister. Davis commented to S.S. that she\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 3\\n\\n\\nlooked young, and S.S.’s sister responded, “she’s 17.” Young then directed S.S.’s sister to drive\\nto Fort Wayne, Indiana. S.S. engaged in an act of prostitution that night, splitting the proceeds\\nwith Young.\\n\\n S.S.’s sister drove S.S. back to Ohio the next morning. S.S.’s sister then went back to\\nFort Wayne, with Davis in the car, after picking up some drugs. That evening, S.S.’s sister drove\\nto pick S.S. up and brought her back to Fort Wayne. Davis was in the car again. S.S. engaged in\\nsex acts for money. She also had sex with Davis. The next day, S.S. and her sister went home to\\nOhio.\\n\\n By January 29, two days later, S.S. again needed money to buy drugs. She first asked her\\nmother because she did not want to engage in prostitution again, but her mother turned her down.\\nS.S. called Davis because she was thinking of selling sex to get money for drugs. S.S.’s mother\\nthen offered to pay for drugs and rented a motel room for the two of them. But when Davis\\ncontacted S.S. to tell her he had arranged for a client, she told him to direct the client to her room\\nand told him where she was staying. After she was done with this client, Young and Davis came\\nfor their half of the money. Davis told S.S. that he had another client for her, but she refused\\nbecause she “had had [her] fill and had money” and she “initially didn’t really want to do the\\nfirst one anyway.”\\n\\n B. The Sentencing Proceedings\\n\\n Davis was convicted after a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to engage in sex\\ntrafficking of a minor, two counts of transportation of a minor with intent to engage in\\nprostitution, and three counts of sex trafficking of a minor. He was acquitted of obstruction of a\\nsex-trafficking investigation.\\n\\n In the presentence report, the United States Probation Office calculated Davis’s adjusted\\noffense level as 41 and his criminal history category as IV, which resulted in an advisory\\nGuidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. Both the Government and the defense\\nobjected to these calculations. As relevant here, the Government argued that Davis’s offense\\nconduct should be separated into three groups—one for each day of prostitution—rather than one\\ngroup. The Government also argued that Davis’s offense level should be enhanced by two levels\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 4\\n\\n\\nbased on his obstruction of justice by breaking his phone. The defense argued that Davis’s\\noffense level should not be enhanced by two levels for exerting “undue influence” over S.S.\\nbecause, despite the difference in age, S.S. was a “willing participant[] in . . . commercial sex\\nacts” and there was “no direct evidence of undue influence.”\\n\\n In a victim-impact letter, quoted in the presentence report, S.S. expressed that she\\n“initially was willing to participate in these acts of prostitution to support [her] drug addiction.”\\nYet she also alleged that Young and Davis took “advantage of the fact that they knew [her] mind\\nwas altered due to drug use, and also being so young [she] was naïve and lacked discernment in\\n[her] decision making. . . . [A]t times when [she] was unsure or uncomfortable continuing in\\ndoing the acts of prostitution they would pressure [her] to do them and [she] gave in.”\\n\\n At the initial sentencing hearing, the district court overruled Davis’s objection to the\\nundue-influence enhancement, relying principally on the rebuttable presumption that this\\nenhancement applies if there is at least a ten-year difference in age. The court stated: “Here\\nthere’s approximately a 16[-]year age gap between the minor and the defendant. . . . The\\ndefendant does not offer much, if anything, by way of rebutting that presumption. This Court\\nadopts the argument set forth by the government in its sentencing memorandum and, again, relies\\nupon Willoughby.”1\\n\\n At a subsequent appearance, the district court agreed with the Government that Davis’s\\noffense conduct should be split into three groups rather than kept as one group. Because this\\ngrouping resulted in Davis’s adjusted offense level being greater than the maximum possible\\nlevel, the Government withdrew its request for an obstruction-of-justice enhancement. The court\\ncalculated Davis’s advisory Guidelines range as life imprisonment and orally pronounced a\\nsentence of life imprisonment.\\n\\n The day after this sentencing hearing, however, the district court contacted counsel and\\nindicated that it “was inclined to impose a different sentence than that announced at the hearing.”\\nThe court convened what it called “a continued hearing or a supplemental hearing.” The\\nGovernment objected, arguing that the oral pronouncement of sentence was final “and should\\n\\n 1United States v. Willoughby, 742 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2014).\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 5\\n\\n\\nstand.” Nonetheless, noting that the entry of judgment had not yet been filed, the court decided\\nto vary downwards based on its concern that there was an “unwarranted sentencing disparity”\\nbetween Davis and his co-defendants. It sentenced Davis to 360 months’ imprisonment.\\nA written judgment memorializing this sentence followed.\\n\\n Davis timely appealed the sentence and the Government timely filed a cross-appeal.\\n\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n\\n This court “review[s] a district court’s calculation of the advisory sentencing Guidelines\\nas part of our obligation to determine whether the district court imposed a sentence that is\\nprocedurally unreasonable. In doing so, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear\\nerror and its legal conclusions de novo.” United States v. Angel, 576 F.3d 318, 320 (6th Cir.\\n2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Government must prove by a\\npreponderance of the evidence that a particular sentencing enhancement applies. See id. at 321.\\n A. Grouping of Offense Conduct\\n\\n Davis argues that the district court erred by grouping his offense conduct into three\\ngroups, one for each of the three days in which S.S. engaged in prostitution, rather than one\\ngroup. This grouping resulted in an increase of his Guidelines offense level by three levels.\\n\\n Section 3D1.2 of the Guidelines explains when closely-related counts of conviction\\nshould be grouped together. It instructs courts to group “[a]ll counts involving substantially the\\nsame harm . . . together into a single Group.” USSG § 3D1.2. It further indicates that separate\\ncounts “involve substantially the same harm” when, among other things, they “involve the same\\nvictim and two or more acts or transactions connected by a common criminal objective or\\nconstituting part of a common scheme or plan.” Id. This means that “counts that are part of a\\nsingle course of conduct with a single criminal objective and represent essentially one composite\\nharm to the same victim are to be grouped together.” USSG § 3D1.2, comment. (n.4) (emphasis\\nadded). But if a “defendant is convicted of two counts of rape for raping the same person on\\ndifferent days” then “[t]he counts are not to be grouped together.” Id. Similarly, separate counts\\nof conviction for “robbery of the same victim on different occasions” are not to be grouped\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 6\\n\\n\\ntogether because they “involve[] multiple, separate instances of fear and risk of harm, not one\\ncomposite harm.” Id.\\n\\n In United States v. Bivens, 811 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2016), we applied § 3D1.2 to hold that\\nthe district court was required to separately group at least four of the defendant’s five counts of\\nconviction for child pornography and sex with a minor. Although these counts stemmed from a\\nseveral-month-long relationship with a single child, “all of the relevant counts arose from distinct\\ncrimes in terms of time and injury to the victim.” Id. at 841. Even “[t]he two counts of the same\\nsubstantive crime—producing child pornography—differ[ed] in time, manner, and place.” Id. at\\n842–43. The other counts also involved “‘separate instance[s]’ of harm.” Id. at 843.\\n\\n The same logic applies here, though this case is a closer call than Bivens. Unlike in\\nBivens, Davis’s actions did not involve “an extended period of time,” id. at 843, and instead took\\nplace over the course of only five days. This case also involved “a single course of conduct with\\na single criminal objective”—selling sex with a minor. Nonetheless, each of the three counts of\\nsex trafficking of a minor involved separate instances of harm. Trafficking a minor to engage in\\ncommercial sex acts on multiple days with different clients is analogous to the Guidelines\\nexample of committing rape on different days—even with the same defendant and same victim,\\neach occasion is a separate harm.\\n\\n Because each of the three counts of sex trafficking of a minor relates to a separate day\\nand harm, the commentary to § 3D1.2 dictates that they should be grouped separately. We\\ntherefore affirm the district court’s determination that Davis’s offense conduct should be counted\\nas three groups. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993) (“[C]ommentary in the\\nGuidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the\\nConstitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that\\nguideline.”).\\n\\n B. Undue-Influence Enhancement\\n\\n Davis also argues that the district court erred in imposing a two-level enhancement of his\\nGuidelines offense level for exercising “undue influence” over S.S. He contends that the\\npresumption of undue influence, which applied because he was more than ten years older than\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 7\\n\\n\\nS.S., was rebutted here because “she had engaged in prostitution . . . before Young reached out to\\nher,” and “it was [S.S.] and her sister who reached out to Young to prostitute themselves.” Thus,\\n“she would have engaged in prostitution . . . whether or not Davis ever entered the picture.”\\nDavis also argues that S.S.’s “attribution [in her victim-impact statement] of Davis’s\\n‘knowledge’ of her drug addiction and that he took advantage of it is not supported by the\\nrecord.” The Government responds, essentially, that Davis has failed to rebut the presumption of\\nundue influence.\\n\\n Section 2G1.3 of the Guidelines, which relates to the sex trafficking of minors, requires a\\nsentencing court to increase the defendant’s offense level by two if “a participant otherwise\\nunduly influenced a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.” USSG § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B).\\nThe commentary to this section specifies that “the court should closely consider the facts of the\\ncase to determine whether a participant’s influence over the minor compromised the\\nvoluntariness of the minor’s behavior.” USSG § 2G1.3, comment. (n.3(B)). It further elaborates\\nthat when the defendant “is at least 10 years older than the minor, there shall be a rebuttable\\npresumption that subsection (b)(2)(B) applies. In such a case, some degree of undue influence\\ncan be presumed because of the substantial difference in age between the participant and the\\nminor.” Id.\\n\\n In this case, the district court relied almost exclusively on this rebuttable presumption.\\nIt noted that there was “approximately a 16[-]year age gap” between S.S. and Davis, and then\\nstated that Davis “does not offer much, if anything, by way of rebutting that presumption.”\\nWithout further discussing the facts of this case, the court said only that it was relying on the\\nGovernment’s arguments in its sentencing memorandum and this court’s decision in Willoughby.\\nExplicit factual findings were thus limited to noting the age difference between Davis and S.S.\\n\\n That was insufficient to discharge the responsibility to “closely consider the facts of the\\ncase.” USSG § 2G1.3, comment. (n.3(B)). The age difference between S.S. and Davis means\\nthat there is a rebuttable presumption of undue influence but, by definition, such a presumption\\ncan be rebutted. In cases where there is significant record evidence that undercuts this\\npresumption, such as this one, a district court cannot rely solely on the presumption to determine\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 8\\n\\n\\nthat the defendant has “compromised the voluntariness of the minor’s behavior.” Id.2 On this\\nrecord, instead, the court was required to consider S.S.’s trial testimony that she had previously\\nengaged in prostitution, willingly engaged in prostitution during the events of this case,\\ncontacted the defendants to have them procure her clients, and refused a client procured for her\\nby Davis. The court was also required to consider S.S.’s assertion in her victim-impact letter that\\nDavis pressured her into engaging in acts of prostitution.3\\n\\n For a sentence to be procedurally reasonable, the sentencing court “must adequately\\nexplain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Gall v. United States,\\n552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). Adequate explanation was lacking in this case, especially considering\\nthe Guidelines’ command to “closely consider the facts of the case” when determining whether\\nto apply an undue-influence enhancement. Because the court did not make adequate factual\\nfindings, it “fail[ed] to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. We therefore vacate\\nand remand for resentencing. Given the apparent conflict between S.S.’s trial testimony and her\\nvictim-impact statement, “[t]he district court is best situated to make the necessary factual\\nfindings and conclusions in the first instance.” United States v. Straughter, 950 F.2d 1223, 1234\\n(6th Cir. 1991).\\n\\n C. Finality of Oral Sentence\\n\\n One final issue remains. In its cross-appeal, the Government argues that the district court\\nerred by reconsidering Davis’s sentence after it had pronounced the sentence in open court.\\nIt does not quibble with the reasonableness of the new sentence itself; rather, it claims that the\\ncourt lacked the authority to modify the sentence once it was imposed—and that a sentence is\\nimposed when it is orally pronounced. Davis responds that the court could reconsider its\\n\\n\\n 2Although it may seem inappropriate to describe a minor as voluntarily engaging in prostitution, Guideline\\n§ 2G1.3 pertains solely to commercial sex acts involving minors. And the undue-influence enhancement is a\\nspecific-offense characteristic under § 2G1.3. Accordingly, the structure of the Guidelines indicates that there must\\nbe cases involving the prostitution of minors where this enhancement does not apply.\\n 3We note that the three cases the Government relies on to support the undue-influence enhancement\\ninvolved a defendant causing an underage victim to engage in sex acts that she would not have otherwise engaged in\\nby taking advantage of a romantic relationship, or the victim’s lack of housing or transportation. See United States\\nv. Farmer, 673 F. App’x 518, 520, 524 (6th Cir. 2016); United States v. Reid, 751 F.3d 763, 768 (6th Cir. 2014);\\nWilloughby, 749 F.3d at 241. None of those factors appear to be present here.\\n\\f Nos. 18-3031/3145 United States v. Davis Page 9\\n\\n\\nsentence because a sentence is imposed when the written judgment is entered. We are inclined\\nto agree with the Government that the court lacked the authority to change its mind and impose a\\ndifferent sentence once it had orally pronounced a sentence in open court.4\\n\\n As the Government conceded at oral argument, however, this issue is moot because we\\nare vacating and remanding for resentencing on the undue-influence-enhancement issue. At this\\nresentencing, the district court is free to impose a sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment—or\\nanother sentence. See United States v. Garcia-Robles, 640 F.3d 159, 164 (6th Cir. 2011)\\n(holding that on a general remand, when a sentence has been vacated on appeal as procedurally\\nunreasonable, the defendant is entitled to a plenary resentencing). We therefore cannot grant the\\nGovernment’s requested relief of remanding for the court to reimpose its initial oral sentence.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the grouping of Davis’s offense conduct,\\nVACATE the sentence, and REMAND for the district court to make factual findings relating to\\nthe undue-influence enhancement and resentence Davis.\\n\\n\\n 418 U.S.C. § 3582(c) provides that the sentencing court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it\\nhas been imposed” except under certain specified circumstances, such as when permitted by Federal Rule of\\nCriminal Procedure 35. Rule 35, in turn, permits a court to reduce a sentence for substantial assistance or to correct\\na clerical error. Because it is undisputed that none of the circumstances listed in § 3582(c) apply, the district court\\ncould change its mind after orally pronouncing sentence in this case only if the term of imprisonment had not yet\\nbeen imposed.\\nWe have not squarely addressed the question of whether a sentence is imposed when it is orally pronounced or when\\nwritten judgment is entered, but we have strongly implied that a sentence is imposed when it is orally pronounced.\\nIn United States v. Arroyo, 434 F.3d 835 (6th Cir. 2006), and then United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743 (6th Cir.\\n2008), this circuit addressed whether a district court could grant a motion for reconsideration of the sentence. In\\nboth cases, the motion was filed after the sentence was orally pronounced but before the entry of written judgment.\\nHouston, 529 F.3d at 747; Arroyo, 434 F.3d at 837. In both instances, we held that the court erred in granting the\\nmotion for reconsideration because the case did not fall within any of the exceptions contained within Rule 35 and\\nthus the court could not modify the term of imprisonment. Houston, 529 F.3d at 748–49; Arroyo, 434 F.3d at 838–\\n39. Indeed, Arroyo noted that Rule 35 “is not intended to afford the court the opportunity to change its mind about\\nthe appropriateness of the sentence.” 434 F.3d at 838 (quoting United States v. Galvan-Perez, 291 F.3d 401, 406\\n(6th Cir. 2002)). Implicit in these holdings is that the sentence was imposed when it was orally pronounced. After\\nall, if the sentence had not yet been imposed, there would be no need to satisfy Rule 35. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)\\n(stating that a court cannot modify a sentence once imposed except under certain circumstances).\\nFurthermore, Rule 35 itself states, “As used in this rule, ‘sentencing’ means the oral announcement of the\\nsentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(c). The advisory committee notes to the 2004 amendments of this rule proclaim that\\nthis provision was added to resolve a circuit split over whether the term “imposition of sentence” means “the oral\\nannouncement of the sentence” or “the entry of the judgment.”\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2087,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4622291,"string":"4,622,291"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"CIC SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; Department of Treasury; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Cic Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-22"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-5019"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Clay, Nalbandian\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888570/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"040dissent\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888571/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"No. 3:17-cv-00110-Travis R. McDonough, District Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0100p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n CIC SERVICES, LLC, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5019\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; DEPARTMENT OF │\\n TREASURY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.\\n No. 3:17-cv-00110—Travis R. McDonough, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: October 19, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 22, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.*\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Adam R. Webber, FALKE & DUNPHY, LLC, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant. Teresa\\nE. McLaughlin, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for\\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Adam R. Webber, FALKE & DUNPHY, LLC, Dayton, Ohio, for\\nAppellant. Teresa E. McLaughlin, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, Bethany B. Hauser, UNITED\\nSTATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. John J. Vecchione,\\nCAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.\\n\\n CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SUHRHEINRICH, J., joined.\\nNALBANDIAN, J. (pp. 16–24), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\\n\\n\\n\\n *The Honorable Damon J. Keith, who participated in oral argument as a member of the original panel, died\\non April 28, 2019. Judge Suhrheinrich replaced Judge Keith on this panel for the consideration and decision of this\\ncase.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff CIC Services, LLC appeals the district court’s November\\n2, 2017 order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject\\nmatter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants’ Notice 2016-66, 2016-47\\nI.R.B. 745 was promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et\\nseq. and the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and seeks to enjoin its\\nenforcement. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal.\\n\\n BACKGROUND\\n\\n Factual Background\\n\\n As a part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Congress delegated authority to the\\nInternal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to identify and gather information about potential tax shelters.\\nSee 26 U.S.C. § 6707A. In exercising that authority, the IRS requires taxpayers and certain third\\nparties to maintain and submit records pertaining to any “reportable transaction[s].” Id.\\n§ 6707A(c). Reportable transactions are those transactions deemed as such by IRS regulations.\\nId.\\n\\n Failure to adhere to these IRS requirements can result in significant penalties. For\\ninstance, a taxpayer who fails to submit to the IRS a return listing his or her reportable\\ntransactions faces a penalty of 75% of his or her tax savings resulting from those transactions,\\nfrom a minimum of $5,000 to a maximum of $200,000. Id. §§ 6011, 6707A(b). A “material\\nadvisor”—one who provides material aid to a taxpayer in his or her carrying out reportable\\ntransactions and who derives a threshold amount of gross income from that aid, see id.\\n§ 6111(b)—faces similar penalties. For instance, a material advisor who fails to submit to the\\nIRS a return listing the reportable transactions in which he or she aided faces a penalty of\\nbetween $50,000 and $200,000. Id. §§ 6111(a), 6707(b). And a material advisor who fails to\\nmaintain a list of the taxpayers that he or she aided in carrying out reportable transactions faces a\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\npenalty of $10,000 per day if the list is not produced within 20 business days of a request from\\nthe IRS. Id. §§ 6112(a), 6708(a).\\n\\n On November 21, 2016, Defendants published Notice 2016-66 (the “Notice”).1 See\\n2016-47 I.R.B. 745.The Notice identified certain “micro-captive transactions” as “transactions of\\ninterest,” a subset of reportable transactions.2 Id.; see also 26 C.F.R. § 1.6011-4(b). The Notice\\nexplained that these transactions have “a potential for tax avoidance or evasion,” but that the IRS\\n“lack[s] sufficient information” to distinguish between those that are lawful and those that are\\nunlawful. 2016-47 I.R.B. 745. By deeming these transactions to be reportable transactions, the\\nNotice imposed the requirements and potential penalties noted above on taxpayers engaging in\\nthem, and on material advisors aiding in them. Id.\\n\\n Procedural History\\n\\n On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff, a material advisor to taxpayers engaging in micro-captive\\ntransactions, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of\\nTennessee. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants promulgated Notice 2016-66 in\\nviolation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. and the\\nCongressional Review Act (“CRA”), 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and seeks to enjoin its enforcement.\\nSpecifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Notice (1) is a legislative rule that required notice-and-\\ncomment rulemaking, (2) is arbitrary and capricious, and therefore ultra vires, and (3) is a rule\\nthat required submission for congressional review before it could go into effect. Plaintiff also\\nfiled a motion for a preliminary injunction.\\n\\n On April 21, 2017, the district court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary\\ninjunction, reasoning that it would not be in the public interest and that Plaintiff was unlikely to\\nsucceed on the merits. Defendants then moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of\\n\\n\\n 1Notice2016-66 was amended by Notice 2017-08, but only with regard to various deadlines. See 2017-3\\nI.R.B. 423. Accordingly, we refer only to Notice 2016-66.\\n 2Micro-captive transactions are “a type of transaction . . . in which a taxpayer attempts to reduce the\\naggregate taxable income of the taxpayer, related persons, or both, using contracts that the parties treat as insurance\\ncontracts and a related company that the parties treat as a captive insurance company.” Id. The details of these\\ntransactions and their tax implications for those that engage in them are not relevant to this appeal. If desired, more\\ninformation can be found at 26 U.S.C. § 831(b) and at IRS News Release IR-2018-62 (Mar. 19, 2018).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nsubject matter jurisdiction. Defendants asserted that Plaintiff’s complaint was barred by the\\nAnti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) and the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act,\\n28 U.S.C. § 2201 (collectively, the “AIA”),3 which divest federal district courts of jurisdiction\\nover suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” On November\\n2, 2017, the district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter\\njurisdiction.\\n\\n This appeal followed.\\n\\n DISCUSSION\\n\\nI. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review de novo questions of subject matter jurisdiction, including whether a\\ncomplaint is barred by the AIA. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Chester, Wilcox & Saxbe, 589 F.3d\\n835, 843 (6th Cir. 2009). In reviewing a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to\\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), we accept all material allegations in the complaint as\\ntrue and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. United\\nStates v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 1994).\\n\\nII. Analysis\\n\\n A. The AIA\\n\\n The AIA provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection\\nof any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). While there\\nexist some statutory and judicial exceptions to this prohibition, they are few and circumscribed.\\nSee RYO Mach., LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 696 F.3d 467, 470 (6th Cir. 2012) (“With few\\nexceptions, no court has jurisdiction over a suit to preemptively challenge a tax.”). Thus,\\n“whether an injunction can legally issue under the AIA” requires only two inquiries. Id. at 471.\\n“First, we must consider whether the . . . complaint[] [is] within the purview of the AIA as a ‘suit\\nfor the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.’” Id. (quoting 26 U.S.C.\\n\\n 3 The Anti-Injunction Act and the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act are “to be interpreted\\ncoterminously.” Ecclesiastical Order of the ISM of AM, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Serv., 725 F.2d 398, 404–05 (6th\\nCir. 1984). For simplicity, we refer to both as the “AIA.”\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n§ 7421(a)). Second, “[i]f so, we must [consider] whether [the] case falls into an exception to the\\nAIA that would [nevertheless] allow us to [reach] the merits.”4 Id.\\n\\n The problem with these ostensibly straightforward inquiries is that “courts lack an\\noverarching theory of the AIA’s meaning and scope against which to evaluate individual\\n[complaints].” Kristin E. Hickman & Gerald Kerska, Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act,\\n103 Va. L. Rev. 1683, 1686 (2017). At times, the Supreme Court has given the AIA “literal\\nforce,” without regard to the character of the tax, the characterization of the preemptive\\nchallenge to it, or other non-textual factors. Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 742\\n(1974). At other times, it has given the AIA “almost literal” force, considering such factors with\\nan eye towards furthering the AIA’s underlying purposes. Id. at 737, 742. The result, according\\nto some commentators, has been “jurisprudential chaos.” Hickman & Kerska, supra, at 1686.\\n\\n We attempt to find some order amidst the chaos, addressing each of the AIA inquiries in\\nturn.\\n\\n 1. Whether Plaintiff’s complaint is within the purview of the AIA\\n\\n Whether a complaint is within the purview of the AIA depends, commonsensically, on\\nwhether it is properly characterized as a “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or\\ncollection of any tax.” RYO, 696 F.3d at 471 (quoting 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)). Plaintiff argues that\\nits complaint is not a suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of taxes.\\nDefendants argue that it is. Reducing the briefs to their cores, Plaintiff asserts that the Supreme\\nCourt’s recent decision in Direct Marketing Ass’n v. Brohl, 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1124 (2015)\\ncontrols this issue, while Defendants assert that the D.C. Circuit’s subsequent decision in Florida\\nBankers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 799 F.3d 1065 (D.C. Cir. 2015), distinguishing\\nDirect Marketing, is more persuasive. We agree with Defendants and hold that Plaintiff’s\\ncomplaint is within the purview of the AIA.\\n\\n\\n\\n 4In this way, the AIA “creates a narrow exception to the general administrative law principle that pre-\\nenforcement review of agency regulations is available in federal court.” Fla. Bankers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the\\nTreasury, 799 F.3d 1065, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2015); see also Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 736 (1974).\\nCf. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140–41 (1967).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n In Direct Marketing, the Supreme Court analyzed the scope of the Tax Injunction Act\\n(“TIA”), which provides that no federal district court shall “enjoin, suspend, or restrain the\\nassessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient\\nremedy may be had in the court of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Although the TIA concerns\\nstate as opposed to federal taxes, it was “modeled on” the AIA and the Supreme Court has long\\nlooked to one in construing the other. Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1129; see also Enochs v.\\nWilliams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U.S. 1, 6 (1962) (“The enactment of the comparable\\n[TIA] . . . throws light on the proper construction to be given [to the AIA].”). The Court began\\nits opinion in Direct Marketing by reaffirming this close connection between the two Acts, and\\nmaking clear that “[it] assume[s] that words used in both Acts are generally used in the same\\nway.” 135 S. Ct. at 1129.\\n\\n At issue in Direct Marketing were the meanings of “restrain,” “assessment,” “levy,” and\\n“collection,” all words, apart from “levy,” used in both the TIA and the AIA. See 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1341; 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a).\\n\\n With regard to “restrain,” the Court explained that “standing alone [it] can have several\\nmeanings.” Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1132. One is a “broad meaning” that “captures\\norders that merely inhibit acts of assessment, levy and collection.” Id. “Another, narrower\\nmeaning, however, is ‘to prohibit from action; to put compulsion upon . . . [or] to enjoin,’” and\\nthis meaning “captures only those orders that stop (or perhaps compel) acts of assessment, levy\\nand collection.” Id. (quotation omitted). The Court held that the TIA uses “restrain” in the\\nlatter, narrower sense. Id. And in doing so, it relied on two contextual clues: the words\\npreceding “restrain” in the TIA—“enjoin” and “suspend,” both of which are “terms of art in\\nequity”—and the “carefully selected list of technical terms” on which “restrain” acts—\\n“assessment,” “levy,” and “collection.” Id. The Court explained that to give “restrain” the broad\\nmeaning would “defeat the precision” of these contextual clues, and would render several of the\\nterms superfluous. Id. Thus, the question that the TIA asks is “whether the relief [sought] to\\nsome degree stops ‘assessment, levy or collection,’ not whether it merely inhibits them.” Id. at\\n1133 (emphasis added).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n With regard to “assessment” and “collection,” the Court noted that it need not\\n“comprehensively define these terms” in order to hold that they did not encompass the reporting\\nrequirements at issue. Id. at 1129. Nevertheless, the Court explained that “assessment” refers to\\n“the official recording of a taxpayer’s liability.” Id. at 1130. “Collection,” in turn, “is the act of\\nobtaining payment of taxes due.” Id. While both “might also be understood more broadly,” the\\nCourt held that under either the narrow or the broad definition, each is a “separate step in the\\ntaxation process” that occurs after the step of reporting to the taxing authority information used\\nto determine tax liability. Id. at 1129–31. (“[T]he Federal Tax Code has long treated\\ninformation gathering as a phase of tax administration procedure that occurs before assessment,\\nlevy, or collection.”).\\n\\n Based on these definitions, the Supreme Court in Direct Marketing ultimately held that\\nthe TIA did not bar the plaintiff’s suit. The plaintiff had sought to enjoin the enforcement of a\\nColorado law that required certain retailers to maintain and submit records pertaining to sales on\\nwhich the retailers did not collect state sales and use taxes. Id. at 1128, 1134. The Court\\nreasoned that while enforcement of the law might “improve Colorado’s ability to assess and\\nultimately collect its sales and use taxes from consumers,” the law was focused on information\\ngathering as opposed to the discrete, subsequent acts of assessment, levy, and collection. Id. at\\n1131. Accordingly, a suit seeking to enjoin its enforcement would, if successful, “merely\\ninhibit[]” those acts as opposed to “restrain[ing]” them. Id. at 1133. And thus the merits of the\\nplaintiff’s suit could be reached.\\n\\n Shortly after Direct Marketing, the D.C. Circuit distinguished it in Florida Bankers with\\nthen-Judge Kavanaugh writing for the majority. 799 F.3d at 1069. At issue in Florida Bankers\\nwere the meanings of “tax” and “for the purpose of” as used in the AIA. See 26 U.S.C.\\n§ 7421(a).\\n\\n With regard to “tax,” the court asked whether that term covers a “penalty” imposed to\\nenforce a “tax-related statutory or regulatory requirement.” Fla. Bankers, 799 F.3d at 1067. The\\ncourt explained that while “[t]he answer to that question is often no . . . the Tax Code defines\\nsome penalties as taxes for purposes of the [AIA].” Id. “In those cases, the [AIA] ordinarily\\napplies because the suit, if successful, would invalidate the regulation and thereby directly\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nprevent [the] collection of [that] tax.” Id. The court held that this is exactly what occurs when\\nthe penalty at issue is located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of the Tax Code. Id. In 26 U.S.C.\\n§ 6671(a), the Tax Code explicitly defines such penalties as taxes for the purposes of the AIA,\\nand that practice has been “clear[ly] and unequivocal[ly]” acknowledged by the Supreme Court.\\nId. at 1068. Specifically, in Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, the Court explained:\\n\\n Congress can, of course, describe something as a penalty but direct that it\\n nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the [AIA]. For example, 26 U.S.C.\\n § 6671(a) provides that “any reference in this title to ‘tax’ imposed by this title\\n shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by”\\n Subchapter 68B of the [Tax] Code. Penalties in Subchapter 68B are thus treated\\n as taxes under Title 26, which includes the [AIA].\\n\\n567 U.S. 519, 544 (2012). Thus, the court in Florida Bankers reasoned that the relevant “tax” in\\nits AIA analysis was the penalty—located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B—that would be imposed\\nupon violation of the challenged regulation. 799 F.3d at 1068.\\n\\n It is on this basis that the court distinguished Direct Marketing. The penalty in that case\\n“was not itself a tax, or at least it was never argued or suggested that the penalty in that case was\\nitself a tax.” Id. at 1069. The court explained that “[i]f the penalty here were not itself a tax, the\\n[AIA] would not bar this suit. But because this penalty is deemed a tax by Section 6671(a), the\\n[AIA] bars this suit as premature.” Id. In other words, unlike in Direct Marketing, the tax in\\nFlorida Bankers was not “two or three steps removed from the regulation in question.” Id.\\nRather, “because the Code define[d] the penalty as a tax, a tax [was] imposed as a direct\\nconsequence of violating the regulation.” Id. And “[i]nvalidating the regulation would directly\\nbar collection of that tax.” Id. (emphasis added). This distinction put the complaint in Florida\\nBankers “at the heartland of the [AIA].” Id. at 1070.\\n\\n With regard to “for the purpose of,” the court rejected the argument that even if the\\npenalty were a tax, the case was still not within the purview of the AIA because the plaintiffs\\nsought relief not from the penalty but from the underlying regulatory mandate. Id. (“[Plaintiffs]\\ncontend instead that they are seeking relief from a regulatory mandate that exists separate and\\napart from the assessment or collection of taxes.”). The court held that “plaintiffs cannot evade\\nthe [AIA] by purporting to challenge only the regulatory aspect of a regulatory tax;” the AIA\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n“cannot be sidestepped by such nifty wordplay.” Id. And in doing so, the court relied on (1) a\\nline of Supreme Court cases describing the “circular” nature of that argument and looking only\\nto whether the relief sought “would necessarily preclude” the collection of taxes within the\\nmeaning of the AIA, Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. 725, 732 (1974); see also Alexander v.\\n“Americans United” Inc., 416 U.S. 752, 760 (1974); Bailey v. George, 259 U.S. 16, 42 (1922),\\n(2) the Supreme Court’s “recent[] indicat[ion]” in NFIB that that argument is meritless, see\\n567 U.S. at 546, and (3) the policy implications of accepting that argument, see Fla. Bankers,\\n799 F.3d at 1071 (“A taxpayer could almost always characterize a challenge to a regulatory tax\\nas a challenge to the regulatory component of the tax. That would reduce the [AIA] to dust in\\nthe context of challenges to regulatory taxes.”). Id. at 1070–71. Thus, the court refused to give\\nany significance to the part of the regulation the plaintiffs purportedly sought to challenge.\\n\\n Based on these definitions, the court in Florida Bankers held that the AIA barred the\\nplaintiffs’ suit. The plaintiffs had sought to enjoin the enforcement of an IRS regulation\\nrequiring banks to report certain interest payments made to account holders. Id. at 1067. The\\ncourt began with its holding that the relevant tax for its AIA analysis was the penalty that the\\nbanks would have to pay if they violated the reporting requirements, not the account-holder taxes\\nthe collection of which those requirements were designed to facilitate. Id. at 1068. The court\\nthen reasoned that the plaintiffs’ suit would, if successful, “invalidate the reporting requirement\\nand restrain (indeed eliminate) the assessment and collection of the tax paid for not complying\\nwith [it].” See id. at 1067, 1072. Accordingly, the suit was “for the purpose of restraining the\\nassessment or collection of a tax,” and the merits could not be reached. Id.\\n\\n Against this backdrop, Plaintiff asserts that Direct Marketing controls, analogizing the\\nTIA to the AIA and the Colorado law to the Notice. Defendants assert that Florida Bankers,\\ndistinguishing Direct Marketing, is more persuasive. We agree with Defendants, as Florida\\nBankers is directly on point, consistent with Direct Marketing, and in accordance with a broader\\nsurvey of Supreme Court and circuit court precedent. Plaintiff’s reply brief provides a useful\\nstructure for illustrating this conclusion.\\n\\n First, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he purpose of this suit is not to restrain the assessment or\\ncollection of taxes.” (Reply Brief for Appellant at 6.) Plaintiff argues that the penalties imposed\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nfor violation of the Notice’s requirements are not taxes for purposes of the AIA, and that the only\\nremaining taxes that the Notice implicates are the “nebulous down-stream” taxes of third parties.\\n(Id.) This argument is unpersuasive.\\n\\n The third-party taxes the collection of which the Notice is designed to facilitate are not\\nthe relevant taxes for this AIA analysis. The relevant taxes are instead the penalties imposed for\\nviolation of the Notice’s requirements. Like the penalty in Florida Bankers, the penalties here\\nare all located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of the Tax Code, and as a result are treated as taxes\\nthemselves for purposes of the AIA. The Supreme Court has explained as much. See NFIB,\\n567 U.S. at 544. We have held as much. See Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529,\\n540 (6th Cr. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by NFIB, 567 U.S. at 519.5 And other circuits\\nhave consistently held as much. See, e.g., Nuttelman v. Vossberg, 753 F.2d 712, 714 (8th Cir.\\n1985); Herring v. Moore, 735 F.2d 797, 798 (5th Cir. 1984); Souther v. Mihlbachler, 701 F.2d\\n131, 132 (10th Cir. 1983); Prof’l Eng’rs, Inc. v. United States, 527 F.2d 597, 599 (4th Cir. 1975).\\n\\n Second, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he purpose of this suit is not to restrain the assessment\\nor collection of taxes.” (Rely Brief for Appellant at 11.) Plaintiff argues that the “information\\ngathering” and “records maintenance” requirements of the Notice are focused on the act of\\nreporting to the taxing authority information used to determine tax liability, not the discrete,\\nsubsequent acts of assessment or collection of that liability. (Id.) This argument misses the\\nmark.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 5In Thomas More Law Ctr., we explained at length that:\\n In many contexts, the law treats “taxes” and “penalties” as mutually exclusive. . . . [but] [o]ther\\n provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, to be sure, show that some “penalties” amount to “taxes”\\n for purposes of the [AIA]. Not surprisingly, for example, Chapter 68 of the Revenue Code\\n imposes “penalties” on individuals who fail to pay their “taxes.” Less obviously, but to similar\\n effect, subchapter B of chapter 68 of the Revenue Code imposes other “penalties” related to the\\n enforcement of traditional taxes. Under section 6671, “any reference in this title to ‘tax’ imposed\\n by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by [subchapter B\\n of chapter 68].” All of these “penalties” thus count as “taxes,” including for purposes of the\\n [AIA]. Otherwise, the recalcitrant tax protester could sue to preempt collection of a substantial\\n monetary charge (accumulated penalties and interest) but not what will often be a smaller charge\\n (the tax owed).\\n651 F.3d at 539 (internal citations omitted).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n While it is true that information reporting is a separate step in the taxation process that\\noccurs before assessment or collection, see Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1130, Plaintiff’s\\nargument presupposes that the relevant taxes in this AIA analysis are the third-party taxes the\\ncollection of which the Notice is designed to facilitate. As previously discussed, that is incorrect.\\nLike the challenged regulation in Florida Bankers, the Notice is indeed “two or three steps\\nremoved” from any third-party taxes. 799 F.3d at 1069. But once it is established that the\\nrelevant tax is the penalty imposed for violation of the Notice’s requirements, it becomes clear\\nthat Plaintiff’s suit is focused on that tax’s assessment or collection. Plaintiff’s suit seeks to\\ninvalidate the Notice, which is the entire basis for that tax. If successful, Plaintiff’s suit would\\n“restrain (indeed eliminate)” it. Id. at 1067.\\n\\n Third, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he purpose of this suit is not to restrain the assessment\\nor collection of taxes. (Reply Brief for Appellant at 15.) Plaintiff argues that under the narrower\\ndefinition of “restrain” articulated in Direct Marketing, its suit would not restrain any tax’s\\nassessment or collection. This argument also misses the mark, for the same reason as Plaintiff’s\\nprior argument.\\n\\n If the relevant taxes in this AIA analysis were the third-party taxes, and if we decided that\\nthe Direct Marketing definition of “restrain” should be extended from the TIA to the AIA, then\\nPlaintiff’s argument would likely have merit. Yet, as previously discussed, the former\\nproposition is incorrect. And as a result, we need not engage with the latter. Even assuming\\narguendo that the Direct Marketing definition should be extended to the AIA,6 Plaintiff’s suit\\n“would have the effect of restraining—fully stopping” the IRS from collecting the penalties\\nimposed for violating the Notice’s requirements. See Maze v. Internal Revenue Serv., 862 F.3d\\n1087, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added) (also assuming extension of the Direct Marketing\\n\\n\\n 6Whether the Direct Marketing definition should be extended from the TIA to the AIA is unclear. The\\nTenth Circuit chose not to do so in Green Solution Retail, Inc. v. United States, 855 F.3d 1111, 1118 (10th Cir.\\n2017). In that case, the court explained that one of the two reasons behind the Supreme Court’s choice of the\\nnarrower definition in Direct Marketing was the fact that it was surrounded by “enjoin” and “suspend,” both of\\nwhich are terms of art in equity, and both of which are absent from the AIA. Id. at 1119. In light of that difference,\\nthe court in Green Solution held that Direct Marketing did not implicitly overrule its prior cases applying the broad\\ndefinition of “restrain.” Id. at 1116. This circuit has similar precedent. See, e.g., Dickens v. United States, 671 F.2d\\n969, 971 (6th Cir. 1982) (“The [AIA] is equally applicable to activities which are intended to or may culminate in\\nthe assessment or collection of taxes.”) (internal quotations omitted).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\ndefinition arguendo). Plaintiff admits as much. (See Rely Brief for Appellant at 7) (“[I]t is true\\nthat the IRS certainly could never collect any penalties . . . for noncompliance if Notice 2016-66\\nis struck down.”).\\n\\n Fourth, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he purpose of this suit is not to restrain the assessment\\nor collection of taxes.” (Reply Brief for Appellant at 18.) Plaintiff argues that its suit is\\nchallenging the Notice’s regulatory requirement and not the penalty. This argument, though\\nintuitive at first glance, is unpersuasive.\\n\\n Any distinction that once existed in the Supreme Court’s AIA jurisprudence between\\n“regulatory” taxes and “revenue-raising” taxes appears to have been “abandoned.” Fla. Bankers,\\n799 F.3d at 1070; see also Bob Jones, 416 U.S. at 741 n.12. In Bob Jones, the Court instead\\nemphasized the effect of the plaintiff’s suit. It held that where the relief sought would\\n“necessarily preclude” the assessment or collection of the relevant tax, the suit “falls squarely\\nwithin the literal scope” of the AIA and federal courts lack jurisdiction over it. Bob Jones,\\n416 U.S. at 731. Yet, the Court has made clear that the purpose of the suit is still a factor in any\\nAIA analysis. In Bob Jones, the Court noted that there was little doubt that a “primary purpose\\nof [the suit]” was to prevent assessment or collection of the relevant tax, regardless of how the\\nchallenge was characterized. Id. at 738. And in Alexander, the Court similarly noted that the\\n“obvious purpose of [the suit]” was to prevent assessment or collection of the relevant tax,\\nregardless of how the challenge was characterized. 416 U.S. at 761.\\n\\n The Court thus seems willing to infer a purpose to restrain the assessment or collection of\\ntaxes in instances where it appears that the plaintiff is—in the words of the D.C. Circuit—trying\\nto “sidestep” the AIA with “nifty wordplay.” Fla. Bankers, 799 F.3d at 1070; see also\\nAlexander, 416 U.S. at 761 (“The [plaintiff’s purported] goal is merely a restatement of the [the\\nplaintiff’s actual goal] and can be accomplished only by restraining the assessment and\\ncollection of a tax in contravention of [the AIA].”); Z Street v. Koskinen, 791 F.3d 24, 28–30\\n(D.C. Cir. 2015) (“In other words, unlike the plaintiffs in Bob Jones and [Alexander], Z Street\\ndoes not have the ‘obvious purpose’ of [restraining the assessment of collection of taxes].”).\\nRelying largely on these cases, the court in Florida Bankers paid even less mind to the subjective\\npurpose of the suit, holding unequivocally that “[a] challenge to a regulatory tax comes within\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nthe scope of the [AIA], even if the plaintiff claims to be targeting the regulatory aspect of the\\nregulatory tax.” 799 F.3d at 1070–71. The court explained that a challenge to the regulatory\\naspect of a regulatory tax is “necessarily” also a challenge to the tax aspect of a regulatory tax\\nbecause invalidating the former would “necessarily” invalidate latter. Id. at 1071.\\n\\n Nevertheless, a panel of this Court recently seemed prepared to recognize the distinction\\nurged by Plaintiff and subsequently rejected by the Florida Bankers court. See Autocam Corp. v.\\nSebelius, 730 F.3d 618, 622 (6th Cir. 2013), vacated by Autocam Corp. v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct.\\n2901 (2014) (“The plaintiffs seek to enjoin a part of the coverage requirements imposed by the\\n[ACA] mandate, not the IRS’s mechanism for collecting ‘tax’ from noncompliant employers.\\nSuch suits are common in other regulatory contexts . . . .”). But Autocam was decided before\\nFlorida Bankers, dedicated few words to its AIA analysis, and in any event, having been vacated\\nby the Supreme Court, is no longer good law. See Hill v. Marshall, 962 F.2d 1209, 1213 (6th\\nCir. 1992). Additional cases cited by Plaintiff and by the dissent in Florida Bankers in support\\nof this distinction are similarly unhelpful.7\\n\\n Ultimately, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s rule favoring “clear boundaries” in\\nthe interpretation of jurisdictional statutes, see Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1131, we find the\\nD.C. Circuit’s recent, unequivocal pronouncement on this issue in Florida Bankers persuasive.\\nAs the Supreme Court has explained “time and again,” the AIA is “more than a pleading\\nexercise,” and to allow Plaintiff’s argument to succeed would “reduce the [AIA] to dust in the\\ncontext of challenges to regulatory taxes.” Fla. Bankers, 779 F.3d at 1071. A challenge to a\\nregulatory tax comes within the scope of the AIA, even if the plaintiff claims to be targeting the\\nregulatory aspect of the regulatory tax, because a challenge to the regulatory aspect of a\\nregulatory tax is necessarily also a challenge to the tax aspect of a regulatory tax. Id.\\nInvalidating the former would “necessarily” invalidate the latter. Id.\\n\\n 7In Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1, 8–9 (D.C. Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by NFIB, 567 U.S.\\nat 519, the D.C. Circuit noted that “[t]he harms appellants allege . . . exist as a result of the [ACA coverage]\\nmandate, not the penalty. . . . The individual mandate and the shared responsibility payment create different legal\\nobligations, for different categories of people, at different times.” But the D.C. Circuit’s more recent decision in\\nFlorida Bankers deemed that passage dicta. See 799 F.3d at 1072 n.3. Additionally, in Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d\\n654, 669 (7th Cir. 2013) and Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1127 (10th Cir. 2013), the courts\\nemphasized that the regulation at issue was a separate provision of the U.S. Code structured not as a predicate to the\\nimposition of a tax, but as a mandate enforceable by a variety of different mechanisms. That is not the case here.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n In sum, we hold that Plaintiff’s complaint seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Notice\\nis properly characterized as a “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of\\nany tax.” RYO, 696 F.3d at 471 (quoting 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)). Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is\\nwithin the purview of the AIA and the district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction\\nover it unless an exception applies.8\\n\\n 2. Whether this case falls into an exception to the AIA\\n\\n As noted above, the statutory and judicial exceptions to the AIA are few and\\ncircumscribed. See RYO, 696 F.3d at 471. Plaintiff asserts that this case falls into the judicial\\nexception created by the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984). In\\nthat case, South Carolina sought to enjoin a federal law that made interest on state-issued bearer\\nbonds taxable. Id. at 370. The Court allowed the merits of this challenge to be reached, even\\nthough it was within the purview of the AIA, because there was no “alternative legal avenue” by\\nwhich South Carolina could challenge the legality of the tax. Id. at 373. South Carolina did not\\nbear the tax itself—the bondholders did—and as a result South Carolina lacked the legal avenues\\navailable to the bondholders. Id. at 378. Without a newly crafted exception to the AIA, it had no\\nway to challenge the law’s constitutionality. Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n 8The dissent poses a hypothetical that it finds problematic in light of our holding: a reporting requirement\\ndiscriminatorily imposed upon a protected class and enforced by a penalty located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of\\nthe Tax Code. See Dis. Op. at 19. According to the dissent, the AIA could not bar a pre-emptive challenge to this\\nrequirement, “without warping the meaning of the statute beyond recognition,” at least in part because the purpose\\nof the suit plainly would be “to end discriminatory action by the Government,” not to enjoin the assessment or\\ncollection of a tax. Id.\\n What troubles the dissent about its hypothetical result is not entirely clear. To the extent that it is the clarity\\nof the purpose of such a suit that troubles the dissent, the same purpose would clearly underlie, for instance, a pre-\\nemptive challenge to tax investigations discriminatorily targeted at a protected class; yet that challenge would likely\\nbe barred by the AIA. See, e.g., Clavizzazo v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“[U]nder\\nthe [AIA], a plaintiff cannot even seek an injunction preventing the IRS from investigating tax liabilities in an\\nallegedly discriminatory or harassing fashion.”). To the extent that it is the constitutional nature of such a suit that\\ntroubles the dissent, “decisions of [the Supreme] Court make it unmistakably clear that the constitutional nature of a\\ntaxpayer’s claim . . . is of no consequence” under the AIA; “the taxpayer must succumb to an unconstitutional tax,\\nand seek recourse only after it has been unlawfully exacted.” United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Min. Co.,\\n553 U.S. 1, 10 (2008) (quotation omitted) (alteration in original). And to the extent that it is the treatment of certain\\npenalties as taxes for purposes of the AIA that troubles the dissent, we are bound by the Supreme Court’s allowance\\nof that practice, whatever its merits or shortcomings. See NFIB, 567 U.S. at 544 (“Congress can, of course, describe\\nsomething as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the [AIA].”).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\n However, as these facts suggest, and as we have explained, “this exception is very\\nnarrow.” RYO, 696 F.3d at 472. “Because of the strong policy animating the [AIA], and the\\nsympathetic, almost unique facts in South Carolina, courts have construed the South Carolina\\nexception very narrowly, undermining [the] plaintiff’s efforts to fit its own claims within the\\nconfines of this exception.” Id. (quotation omitted). As in RYO, this case “is distinguishable\\nfrom South Carolina in various ways.” Id.\\n\\n Most significantly, the Supreme Court contrasted the facts of South Carolina with cases\\nin which plaintiffs have “the alternative remedy of a suit for a refund.” 465 U.S. at 374–75;\\naccord RYO, 696 F.3d at 472. Plaintiff does not contest that it has this alterative remedy.\\nRather, Plaintiff challenges whether that remedy is sufficiently meaningful. Plaintiff contends\\nthat having to “break the law” by violating the Notice, and then sue for a refund, is “no remedy\\nat all.” (Brief for Appellant at 38–40.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention however, that is\\nexactly what the AIA is designed to require. The AIA “serves two related purposes,” Dickens v.\\nUnited States, 671 F.2d 969, 971 (6th Cir. 1982), “to permit the United States to assess and\\ncollect taxes alleged to be due without judicial intervention, and to require that the legal right to\\ndisputed sums be determined in a suit for refund.” Williams Packing, 370 U.S. 1 at 7. Thus, we\\nhold that Plaintiff’s complaint does not fall into the South Carolina exception to the AIA.\\n\\n CONCLUSION\\n\\n The broader legal context in which this case has been brought is not lost on this Court.\\nDefendants “do not have a great history of complying with APA procedures, having claimed for\\nseveral decades that their rules and regulations are exempt from those requirements.” Hickman\\n& Gerska, supra, at 1712–13. And despite the jurisdictional nature of this appeal, Plaintiff has\\nmade its thoughts on the merits abundantly clear, emphasizing that “Notice 2016-66’s Issuance\\nand Enforcement is an Obvious Violation of the APA.” (Reply Brief for Appellant at 4.) But\\nthat does not in and of itself give federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over suits\\nseeking to enjoin the assessment or collection of taxes. Absent further instruction from Congress\\nor the Supreme Court, such suits are barred by the AIA.\\n\\n For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n DISSENT\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4399544/\", \"author_raw\": \"No. 3:17-cv-00110-Travis R. McDonough, District Judge\"}, {\"author\": \"NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Ordinarily, administrative law does not\\nintend to leave regulated parties caught between a hammer and an anvil. That is why the\\nSupreme Court has recognized a norm in favor of pre-enforcement judicial review of final\\nagency action. See, e.g., Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140 (1967). Judicial\\nreview obviates the dilemma of either complying with potentially unlawful (and onerous)\\nregulations or “risk[ing] prosecution.” Id. at 152. But that is the choice CIC Services is left with\\ntoday. The majority holds that the Anti-Injunction Act bars us from reviewing CIC’s pre-\\nenforcement challenge of an Internal Revenue Service reporting requirement.1 I disagree.\\n\\n The Anti-Injunction Act bars all “suit[s] for the purpose of restraining the assessment or\\ncollection of any tax.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). This provision ensures the “prompt collection” of\\nthe Government’s “lawful revenue.” Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7\\n(1962). It allows the Government “to assess and collect taxes alleged to be due without judicial\\nintervention” by requiring taxpayers to seek relief in a refund suit, after the disputed tax is paid.\\nId. The question here is whether CIC’s challenge falls within this statute: Is it a “suit for the\\npurpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax?” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a).\\n\\n Perhaps at some level of abstraction, it could be. CIC seeks to enjoin an IRS notice that\\nrequires it to report certain transactions and to maintain a (reportable) list of clients who engage\\nin those transactions. See Notice 2016-66, 2016-47 I.R.B. 745. CIC contends that the IRS\\npromulgated the notice in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Congressional\\nReview Act.\\n\\n Of course, the reports themselves are not taxes. Nor do they necessarily contain\\ninformation showing that CIC or its clients owe taxes. And CIC does not allege tax liability as\\nits injury. Rather, it takes issue with the hundreds of hours of labor and tens of thousands of\\n\\n 1Here, references to the Anti-Injunction Act also refer to the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment\\nAct, both of which are “to be interpreted coterminously.” Ecclesiastical Order of the ISM of AM, Inc. v. Internal\\nRevenue Serv., 725 F.2d 398, 404–05 (6th Cir. 1984).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\ndollars the requirement will cost to comply with. And all so that, CIC argues, the IRS can\\nunfairly and publicly portray its “industry as one filled with crooked operatives and tax\\nscammers.” Put simply, this is not a dispute over taxes.\\n\\n That said, the IRS promulgated the notice because the agency “lack[s] sufficient\\ninformation to identify which” transactions have a potential for tax avoidance and which do not.\\n2016-47 I.R.B. 745. Presumably, once the IRS uses the reported information to identify which\\nones do, there will be tax consequences for some taxpayers. So it is plausible that CIC’s\\nchallenge could eventually hinder the assessment and collection of taxes down the road.\\n\\n But is that enough to trigger the Anti-Injunction Act? According to Direct Marketing\\nAss’n v. Brohl, 135 S. Ct. 1124 (2015), the answer is a resounding “No.” What Direct Marketing\\ntaught us in interpreting the similarly worded Tax-Injunction Act is that the text of the statute is\\nparamount. And a suit to enjoin the enforcement of a reporting requirement is not a “suit for the\\npurpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (emphases\\nadded).\\n\\n As the Supreme Court explained there, “information gathering” (such as the reporting\\nrequirement here) is “a phase of tax administration procedure that occurs before assessment . . .\\nor collection.” Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1129 (emphasis added). “‘Assessment’ is the\\nnext step in the process, and it refers to the official recording of a taxpayer’s liability.” Id. at\\n1130. But that does not occur until “after information relevant to the calculation of that liability\\nis reported to the taxing authority.” Id. (emphasis added). And “collection” comes even later.\\nSee id. It is the “act of obtaining payment of taxes due.” Id. To be sure, the Court\\nacknowledged that “assessment” and “collection” could be understood more broadly. See id. at\\n1130–31. But no matter how broadly those terms might stretch, they refer to phases in the\\nprocess distinct from “information gathering.” See id.\\n\\n And so, the Court reasoned, the Tax-Injunction Act “is not keyed to all activities that may\\nimprove [the Government’s] ability to assess and collect taxes.” Id. at 1131. “Such a rule would\\nbe inconsistent not only with the text of the statute, but also with our rule favoring clear\\nboundaries in the interpretation of jurisdictional statutes.” Id. District courts may not\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\n“restrain”—i.e., “enjoin,” “stop,” or “prohibit”2—the “assessment” or “collection” of taxes. Id.\\nat 1132. “[A]nd enforcement of . . . reporting requirements is none of these.” Id. at 1131.\\n\\n Although Direct Marketing appears to settle the matter, the Government notes a\\ndistinction between that case and this one. In Direct Marketing, the penalty that enforced the\\nreporting requirement “was not itself a tax”—or at least no one argued that it was. Florida\\nBankers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 799 F.3d 1065, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Here, in\\ncontrast, the reporting requirement is enforced by penalties in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of the\\nTax Code. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6707, 6707A, 6708. And the Tax Code deems those penalties\\n“taxes.” 26 U.S.C. § 6671(a).\\n\\n So the specific issue here is whether a reporting requirement that is enforced by a “tax” is\\nshielded from pre-enforcement judicial review under the Anti-Injunction Act. The majority\\nadopts the reasoning of Florida Bankers to answer that question affirmatively.\\n\\n In Florida Bankers, a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit held that the Anti-Injunction Act\\nbarred a similar suit challenging the legality of a reporting requirement that the IRS enforced\\nwith a tax. See 799 F.3d at 1072. That is because, the court reasoned, the tax is “imposed as a\\ndirect consequence of violating the regulation,” and so “[i]nvalidating the regulation would\\ndirectly bar collection of that tax.” Id. at 1069. For the D.C. Circuit majority, this distinguished\\nthe case from Direct Marketing because “the tax . . . is not two or three steps removed from the\\nregulation in question.” Id. In other words, there was no attenuation between the assessment\\nand collection of the tax, on the one hand, and invalidating the regulation on the other.\\n\\n 2In Direct Marketing, the Court opted to give “restrain” this narrower meaning as opposed to its broader\\nmeaning, which would apply to suits that “merely inhibit” assessment or collection. 135 S. Ct. at 1132. The\\nmajority nevertheless cautions that it is “unclear” that “restrain” carries the same meaning in the Anti-Injunction Act\\nthat it does in the Tax-Injunction Act. But the Court explained that the words used in both statutes “are generally\\nused in the same way.” Id. at 1129. It also justified giving “restrain” its narrower meaning, in part, on the fact that,\\nin the Tax-Injunction Act, “restrain” operates “on a carefully selected list of technical terms—‘assessment, levy,\\ncollection’—not on an all-encompassing term, like ‘taxation.’” Id. at 1132. To give restrain its broader meaning,\\nthe Court reasoned, “would be to defeat the precision of that list, as virtually any court action related to any phase of\\ntaxation might be said to ‘hold back’ ‘collection.’” Id. The only difference between the Anti-Injunction Act and the\\nTax-Injunction Act in that respect is that the former omits the word “levy” from its text. Finally, the Court explained\\nthat the “narrower definition is consistent with the rule that ‘[j]urisidictional rules should be clear.’” Id. at 1133\\n(quoting Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 321 (2005) (Thomas, J.,\\nconcurring) (alteration in original)). These reasons militate in favor of giving “restrain” its narrower meaning in the\\nAnti-Injunction Act, too.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\n That misses the mark. Enjoining a reporting requirement enforced by a tax does not\\nnecessarily bar the assessment or collection of that tax. That is because the tax does not result\\nfrom the requirement per se. The only way for the IRS to assess and collect the tax is for a party\\nto violate the requirement. So enjoining the requirement only stops the assessment and\\ncollection of the tax in the sense that a party cannot first violate the requirement and then become\\nliable for the tax. Surely, this is the kind of attenuated relationship between “restrain,”\\n“assessment,” and “collection” that Direct Marketing rejected. At best, the difference is one of\\ndegree—there may not be three steps of attenuation here or in Florida Bankers, but there\\ncertainly is attenuation.3\\n\\n The Florida Bankers court would reject this reasoning as “nifty wordplay.” Id. at 1070.\\nTo show why it is not, consider this hypothetical: Imagine if the IRS notice here unlawfully\\ndiscriminated against a group of Americans by subjecting only that group to its reporting\\nrequirement. The logic of Florida Bankers would require us to characterize an Equal Protection\\nchallenge to the discriminatory notice as a “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or\\ncollection of [a] tax” simply because it is enforced by a penalty in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of\\nthe Tax Code.4 Intuitively, we know that description cannot stand without warping the meaning\\nof the statute beyond recognition. No one thinks that the plaintiffs in that hypothetical case\\nwould care about enjoining the collection of a tax. The purpose of the suit would be to end\\ndiscriminatory action by the Government. And yet the tax in that hypothetical is no further\\nremoved from the notice there than the tax in this case is removed from the notice here.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3And, unsurprisingly, commentators have recognized the tension between Florida Bankers and Direct\\nMarketing. See, e.g., Kristin E. Hickman & Gerald Kerska, Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act, 103 Va. L. Rev.\\n1683, 1685 (2017) (“Florida Bankers also arguably contradicts the Supreme Court’s reading in Direct Marketing\\nAss’n v. Brohl of the similarly worded Tax Injunction Act . . . .”); Stephanie Hunter McMahon, Pre-Enforcement\\nLitigation Needed for Taxing Procedures, 92 Wash. L. Rev. 1317, 1368 (2017) (“Direct Marketing is seemingly at\\nodds with another case, discussed in the prior Part, Florida Bankers Ass’n v. Department of Treasury.”); Patrick J.\\nSmith, D.C. Circuit in Florida Bankers Misapplies Anti-Injunction Act, 149 Tax Notes 1493, 1493 (Dec. 21, 2015)\\n(“This report explains how the majority opinion in Florida Bankers is inconsistent with Direct Marketing, as well as\\nD.C. Circuit precedent on the AIA.”).\\n 4To be sure, the court in Florida Bankers suggested that the regulation would have to be “tax-related.”\\n799 F.3d at 1067. But, as the hypothetical demonstrates, one can imagine any number of pernicious regulations that\\ncould be made to fit that description.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\n The Florida Bankers court dismissed an argument based on similar reasoning, stating,\\n“plaintiffs cannot evade the Anti-Injunction Act by purporting to challenge only the regulatory\\naspect of a regulatory tax.” Id. In doing so, the court mainly relied on Bob Jones University v.\\nSimon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974) and Alexander v. “Americans United” Inc., 416 U.S. 752 (1974).\\nBoth cases involved non-profit organizations that brought constitutional challenges to IRS letter-\\nrulings revoking their tax-exempt status. See Bob Jones, 416 U.S. at 735–36; Alexander,\\n416 U.S. at 755–56. And the plaintiffs in both cases argued that the purpose of their suits was\\n“to ensure that donors seeking tax deductions would continue to contribute to their\\norganizations,” not to restrain the assessment or collection of taxes. Seven-Sky v. Holder,\\n661 F.3d 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v.\\nSebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).\\n\\n But the critical distinction between those cases and this one is that “challenges to IRS\\nletter-rulings revoking tax-exempt status are inextricably linked to the assessment and collection\\nof taxes.” Id. The direct consequence of the IRS letter-rulings for both cases was that the\\norganization became liable for federal unemployment taxes. Bob Jones, 416 U.S. at 730;\\nAlexander, 416 U.S. at 755. In fact, “the only injuries plaintiffs identified involved tax liability.”\\nSeven-Sky, 661 F.3d at 10. So the Supreme Court unsurprisingly saw through the plaintiffs’\\narguments and held that each suit was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act because, if successful,\\neach would “necessarily preclude” the collection of taxes. Bob Jones, 416 U.S. at 732; see also\\nAlexander, 416 U.S. at 761.\\n\\n That is not the case here. The regulation that CIC seeks to enjoin does not directly result\\nin any tax liability. Indeed, the IRS cannot even assess the tax unless Plaintiff first violates the\\nregulation. This attenuation means that, unlike in Bob Jones or Alexander, an injunction does\\nnot “necessarily preclude” an assessment or collection of taxes. This also alleviates any worry\\nthat plaintiffs could avoid the Anti-Injunction Act by always recharacterizing their suits as\\nchallenges to a regulation instead of a tax. Plaintiffs may make those arguments, but as in Bob\\nJones and Alexander, they will often fail.\\n\\n The other case that the Florida Bankers court substantially relied on, NFIB v. Sebelius, is\\nnot to the contrary. There, the plaintiffs argued that the Anti-Injunction Act should not apply\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\nsince they were challenging a regulatory mandate to purchase health insurance, not the penalty\\nfor failing to purchase the insurance. Florida Bankers, 799 F.3d at 1071. Though the Supreme\\nCourt agreed that the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply, it did so because it held that the penalty\\nat issue was not a tax under the statute. Id. The Florida Bankers court read the decision to mean\\nthat “the Anti-Injunction Act would have applied if the penalty were a tax under the Act.” Id. It\\ngave two reasons for reaching that conclusion. First, it relied on the Supreme Court’s statement\\nthat because the penalty was not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act, the statute did not apply,\\nand so the Court could go on to reach the merits. Id. Second, the court noted that the Supreme\\nCourt failed to expressly address plaintiffs’ argument despite “the extensive briefing and [oral]\\nargument focused on [it].” Id.\\n\\n But as Judge Henderson explained in her dissent, the first reason falls victim to the\\nfallacy of “denying the antecedent.” Id. at 1080 (Henderson, J., dissenting). Stated abstractly, it\\nmeans one is wrong to assume that because a conditional premise is true, so is its inverse. See id.\\n(citing New England Power Generators Ass’n, Inc. v. FERC, 707 F.3d 364, 370 & n.3 (D.C. Cir.\\n2013)). Stated in terms of this case, it means one is wrong to assume that a suit implicating a tax\\ntriggers the Anti-Injunction Act simply because a suit not implicating a tax does not trigger the\\nAnti-Injunction Act.\\n\\n On top of that, and again as Judge Henderson noted, the first reason is not textually\\nsound. Id. Even if a suit implicates a tax, that does not mean it is necessarily barred by the Anti-\\nInjunction Act: “the suit may nonetheless not seek to ‘restrain[] the assessment or collection’ of\\nsaid tax.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)).\\n\\n The second reason is inherently speculative and, regardless, cuts in both directions. For it\\nis just as likely that the Supreme Court intentionally avoided the issue since it was unnecessary\\nto reach in that case. At bottom, the NFIB Court never said that pre-enforcement review of a\\nregulatory mandate is barred under the Anti-Injunction Act simply because it is enforced by a\\ntax. A search for that proposition in the opinion leaves one emptyhanded.\\n\\n More importantly, the NFIB Court did not have the benefit of its later decision in Direct\\nMarketing. We do. And there the Court did not mince its words: “[E]nforcement of . . .\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\nreporting requirements is” neither “assessment” nor “collection.” 135 S. Ct. at 1131. Nothing in\\nthe Court’s decision causes me to think it would have held differently if someone had argued that\\nthe $5 or $10 penalties in that case were taxes.\\n\\n Under the majority’s decision, CIC now only has two options: (1) acquiesce to a\\npotentially unlawful reporting requirement that will cost it significant money and reputational\\nharm or (2) flout the requirement, i.e., “break the law,” to the tune of $50,000 in penalties for\\neach transaction it fails to report. See 26. U.S.C. § 6707(a)–(b). Only if it (or someone else)\\nfollows the latter path—and only when (or if) the Government comes to collect the penalty—will\\nany court be able to pass judgment on the legality of the regulatory action.\\n\\n Moreover, plaintiffs who do follow that path are not only subject to financial penalties\\nbut also criminal penalties.5 The Tax Code makes it a misdemeanor for any person who\\n“willfully fails” to “make any return, keep any records, or supply any information” required\\nunder its title and its regulations. 26 U.S.C. § 7203. And it fines that person $25,000 ($100,000\\nif it’s a corporation). See id.\\n\\n In other words, the only lawful means a person has of challenging the reporting\\nrequirement here is to violate the law and risk financial ruin and criminal prosecution. That is\\nprobably enough to test the intestinal fortitude of anyone. And it leaves CIC in precisely the\\nbind that pre-enforcement judicial review was meant to avoid. See, e.g., Free Enter. Fund v.\\nPub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 490 (2010) (“We normally do not require\\nplaintiffs to ‘bet the farm . . . by taking the violative action’ before ‘testing the validity of the\\nlaw.’”) (quoting MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 129 (2007)); MedImmune,\\nInc., 549 U.S. at 128–29 (“[W]here threatened action by government is concerned, we do not\\nrequire a plaintiff to expose himself to liability before bringing suit to challenge the basis for the\\nthreat.”); Gardner v. Toilet Good Ass’n, 387 U.S. 167, 172 (1967) (concluding that a “proposed\\navenue of review [] beset with penalties and other impediments [is] inadequate as a satisfactory\\nalternative to [pre-enforcement review]”).\\n\\n 5If that seems like it must be wrong, think again. The Government’s only response to whether it could\\ncriminally prosecute a person seeking judicial review for failing to supply the required information was that it was\\n“not clear.” [Government’s Br. at 58.]\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\n That might not be so alarming if this predicament was confined to this notice. But at\\nleast two commentators predict that the reasoning of Florida Bankers would apply to “most if\\nnot all Treasury regulations and IRS guidance documents.” Kristin E. Hickman & Gerald Kersa,\\nRestoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act, 103 Va. L. Rev. 1683, 1685 (2017). The inevitable\\nconsequence of our decision today is that “many” of those regulations and guidance documents\\nwill be rendered “effectively unreviewable.” Id. at 1686. In the process, something more may\\nbe lost than the private stakes in each meritorious case that would have otherwise been brought.\\nAnd that is, “public confidence in the quality and legitimacy of agency action” for which judicial\\nreview was meant to serve as a protective bulwark. Id.\\n\\n And to what end? The chief “evil[]” the Anti-Injunction Act sought to ward off was\\nundue judicial “interfere[nce] with the process of collecting the taxes on which the government\\ndepends for its continued existence.” Taylor v. Secor, 92 U.S. 575, 613 (1875). But the\\nreporting requirement here generates no revenue for the Government. And the point of the\\npenalty is to incentivize compliance with the requirement—not to incentivize its own assessment\\nand collection. So it is not at all clear to me that barring CIC’s suit serves the purpose of the\\nAnti-Injunction Act. Indeed, the opposite appears true.\\n\\n If all this seems rather anomalous, that is because it is. In the typical Anti-Injunction Act\\ncase, a plaintiff seeks to prevent some imminent process of assessment or collection relating to\\nthe taxes that he owes for a given year. See, e.g., Tatar v. United States, No. 17-2088, 2018 WL\\n2247497 at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 24, 2018) (unpublished); Dunlap v. Lew, No. 16-3658, 2017 WL\\n9496075 at *1 (6th Cir. June 2, 2017) (unpublished). To seek judicial review, all the plaintiff\\nmust do is (leaving aside some procedural hoops) pay the tax and sue for a refund. See Dunlap,\\n2017 WL 9496075 at *2. In that way, the Anti-Injunction Act’s goal of ensuring the Nation’s\\nefficient collection of tax revenues is fulfilled, and the plaintiff has every incentive to seek\\njudicial review if he has a meritorious claim.\\n\\n Contrast that with the situation here: the path to judicial review is fraught with threats of\\npenalties, fines, and prosecution—all intended to encourage compliance with a reporting\\nrequirement that collects not a penny for the Government. The anomalous implications of\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\ntoday’s decision should convince us that we have given an anomalous reading to the Anti-\\nInjunction Act.\\n\\n For these reasons, I would hold that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar CIC’s suit.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4399544/\", \"author_raw\": \"NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"CLAY"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"NALBANDIAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"CLAY"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4622291/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: CIC SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; Department of Treasury; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-22\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0100p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n CIC SERVICES, LLC, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\n │\n > No. 18-5019\n v. │\n │\n │\n INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; DEPARTMENT OF │\n TREASURY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │\n Defendants-Appellees. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.\n No. 3:17-cv-00110—Travis R. McDonough, District Judge.\n\n Argued: October 19, 2018\n\n Decided and Filed: May 22, 2019\n\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.*\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Adam R. Webber, FALKE & DUNPHY, LLC, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant. Teresa\nE. McLaughlin, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Adam R. Webber, FALKE & DUNPHY, LLC, Dayton, Ohio, for\nAppellant. Teresa E. McLaughlin, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, Bethany B. Hauser, UNITED\nSTATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. John J. Vecchione,\nCAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.\n\n CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SUHRHEINRICH, J., joined.\nNALBANDIAN, J. (pp. 16–24), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\n\n\n\n *The Honorable Damon J. Keith, who participated in oral argument as a member of the original panel, died\non April 28, 2019. Judge Suhrheinrich replaced Judge Keith on this panel for the consideration and decision of this\ncase.\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 2\n\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff CIC Services, LLC appeals the district court’s November\n2, 2017 order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject\nmatter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants’ Notice 2016-66, 2016-47\nI.R.B. 745 was promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et\nseq. and the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and seeks to enjoin its\nenforcement. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n Factual Background\n\n As a part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Congress delegated authority to the\nInternal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to identify and gather information about potential tax shelters.\nSee 26 U.S.C. § 6707A. In exercising that authority, the IRS requires taxpayers and certain third\nparties to maintain and submit records pertaining to any “reportable transaction[s].” Id.\n§ 6707A(c). Reportable transactions are those transactions deemed as such by IRS regulations.\nId.\n\n Failure to adhere to these IRS requirements can result in significant penalties. For\ninstance, a taxpayer who fails to submit to the IRS a return listing his or her reportable\ntransactions faces a penalty of 75% of his or her tax savings resulting from those transactions,\nfrom a minimum of $5,000 to a maximum of $200,000. Id. §§ 6011, 6707A(b). A “material\nadvisor”—one who provides material aid to a taxpayer in his or her carrying out reportable\ntransactions and who derives a threshold amount of gross income from that aid, see id.\n§ 6111(b)—faces similar penalties. For instance, a material advisor who fails to submit to the\nIRS a return listing the reportable transactions in which he or she aided faces a penalty of\nbetween $50,000 and $200,000. Id. §§ 6111(a), 6707(b). And a material advisor who fails to\nmaintain a list of the taxpayers that he or she aided in carrying out reportable transactions faces a\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 3\n\n\npenalty of $10,000 per day if the list is not produced within 20 business days of a request from\nthe IRS. Id. §§ 6112(a), 6708(a).\n\n On November 21, 2016, Defendants published Notice 2016-66 (the “Notice”).1 See\n2016-47 I.R.B. 745.The Notice identified certain “micro-captive transactions” as “transactions of\ninterest,” a subset of reportable transactions.2 Id.; see also 26 C.F.R. § 1.6011-4(b). The Notice\nexplained that these transactions have “a potential for tax avoidance or evasion,” but that the IRS\n“lack[s] sufficient information” to distinguish between those that are lawful and those that are\nunlawful. 2016-47 I.R.B. 745. By deeming these transactions to be reportable transactions, the\nNotice imposed the requirements and potential penalties noted above on taxpayers engaging in\nthem, and on material advisors aiding in them. Id.\n\n Procedural History\n\n On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff, a material advisor to taxpayers engaging in micro-captive\ntransactions, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of\nTennessee. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants promulgated Notice 2016-66 in\nviolation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. and the\nCongressional Review Act (“CRA”), 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and seeks to enjoin its enforcement.\nSpecifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Notice (1) is a legislative rule that required notice-and-\ncomment rulemaking, (2) is arbitrary and capricious, and therefore ultra vires, and (3) is a rule\nthat required submission for congressional review before it could go into effect. Plaintiff also\nfiled a motion for a preliminary injunction.\n\n On April 21, 2017, the district court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary\ninjunction, reasoning that it would not be in the public interest and that Plaintiff was unlikely to\nsucceed on the merits. Defendants then moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of\n\n\n 1Notice2016-66 was amended by Notice 2017-08, but only with regard to various deadlines. See 2017-3\nI.R.B. 423. Accordingly, we refer only to Notice 2016-66.\n 2Micro-captive transactions are “a type of transaction . . . in which a taxpayer attempts to reduce the\naggregate taxable income of the taxpayer, related persons, or both, using contracts that the parties treat as insurance\ncontracts and a related company that the parties treat as a captive insurance company.” Id. The details of these\ntransactions and their tax implications for those that engage in them are not relevant to this appeal. If desired, more\ninformation can be found at 26 U.S.C. § 831(b) and at IRS News Release IR-2018-62 (Mar. 19, 2018).\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 4\n\n\nsubject matter jurisdiction. Defendants asserted that Plaintiff’s complaint was barred by the\nAnti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) and the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act,\n28 U.S.C. § 2201 (collectively, the “AIA”),3 which divest federal district courts of jurisdiction\nover suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” On November\n2, 2017, the district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter\njurisdiction.\n\n This appeal followed.\n\n DISCUSSION\n\nI. Standard of Review\n\n We review de novo questions of subject matter jurisdiction, including whether a\ncomplaint is barred by the AIA. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Chester, Wilcox & Saxbe, 589 F.3d\n835, 843 (6th Cir. 2009). In reviewing a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), we accept all material allegations in the complaint as\ntrue and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. United\nStates v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 1994).\n\nII. Analysis\n\n A. The AIA\n\n The AIA provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection\nof any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). While there\nexist some statutory and judicial exceptions to this prohibition, they are few and circumscribed.\nSee RYO Mach., LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 696 F.3d 467, 470 (6th Cir. 2012) (“With few\nexceptions, no court has jurisdiction over a suit to preemptively challenge a tax.”). Thus,\n“whether an injunction can legally issue under the AIA” requires only two inquiries. Id. at 471.\n“First, we must consider whether the . . . complaint[] [is] within the purview of the AIA as a ‘suit\nfor the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.’” Id. (quoting 26 U.S.C.\n\n 3 The Anti-Injunction Act and the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act are “to be interpreted\ncoterminously.” Ecclesiastical Order of the ISM of AM, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Serv., 725 F.2d 398, 404–05 (6th\nCir. 1984). For simplicity, we refer to both as the “AIA.”\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 5\n\n\n§ 7421(a)). Second, “[i]f so, we must [consider] whether [the] case falls into an exception to the\nAIA that would [nevertheless] allow us to [reach] the merits.”4 Id.\n\n The problem with these ostensibly straightforward inquiries is that “courts lack an\noverarching theory of the AIA’s meaning and scope against which to evaluate individual\n[complaints].” Kristin E. Hickman & Gerald Kerska, Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act,\n103 Va. L. Rev. 1683, 1686 (2017). At times, the Supreme Court has given the AIA “literal\nforce,” without regard to the character of the tax, the characterization of the preemptive\nchallenge to it, or other non-textual factors. Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 742\n(1974). At other times, it has given the AIA “almost literal” force, considering such factors with\nan eye towards furthering the AIA’s underlying purposes. Id. at 737, 742. The result, according\nto some commentators, has been “jurisprudential chaos.” Hickman & Kerska, supra, at 1686.\n\n We attempt to find some order amidst the chaos, addressing each of the AIA inquiries in\nturn.\n\n 1. Whether Plaintiff’s complaint is within the purview of the AIA\n\n Whether a complaint is within the purview of the AIA depends, commonsensically, on\nwhether it is properly characterized as a “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or\ncollection of any tax.” RYO, 696 F.3d at 471 (quoting 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)). Plaintiff argues that\nits complaint is not a suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of taxes.\nDefendants argue that it is. Reducing the briefs to their cores, Plaintiff asserts that the Supreme\nCourt’s recent decision in Direct Marketing Ass’n v. Brohl, 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1124 (2015)\ncontrols this issue, while Defendants assert that the D.C. Circuit’s subsequent decision in Florida\nBankers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 799 F.3d 1065 (D.C. Cir. 2015), distinguishing\nDirect Marketing, is more persuasive. We agree with Defendants and hold that Plaintiff’s\ncomplaint is within the purview of the AIA.\n\n\n\n 4In this way, the AIA “creates a narrow exception to the general administrative law principle that pre-\nenforcement review of agency regulations is available in federal court.” Fla. Bankers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the\nTreasury, 799 F.3d 1065, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2015); see also Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 736 (1974).\nCf. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140–41 (1967).\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 6\n\n\n In Direct Marketing, the Supreme Court analyzed the scope of the Tax Injunction Act\n(“TIA”), which provides that no federal district court shall “enjoin, suspend, or restrain the\nassessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient\nremedy may be had in the court of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Although the TIA concerns\nstate as opposed to federal taxes, it was “modeled on” the AIA and the Supreme Court has long\nlooked to one in construing the other. Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1129; see also Enochs v.\nWilliams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U.S. 1, 6 (1962) (“The enactment of the comparable\n[TIA] . . . throws light on the proper construction to be given [to the AIA].”). The Court began\nits opinion in Direct Marketing by reaffirming this close connection between the two Acts, and\nmaking clear that “[it] assume[s] that words used in both Acts are generally used in the same\nway.” 135 S. Ct. at 1129.\n\n At issue in Direct Marketing were the meanings of “restrain,” “assessment,” “levy,” and\n“collection,” all words, apart from “levy,” used in both the TIA and the AIA. See 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1341; 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a).\n\n With regard to “restrain,” the Court explained that “standing alone [it] can have several\nmeanings.” Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1132. One is a “broad meaning” that “captures\norders that merely inhibit acts of assessment, levy and collection.” Id. “Another, narrower\nmeaning, however, is ‘to prohibit from action; to put compulsion upon . . . [or] to enjoin,’” and\nthis meaning “captures only those orders that stop (or perhaps compel) acts of assessment, levy\nand collection.” Id. (quotation omitted). The Court held that the TIA uses “restrain” in the\nlatter, narrower sense. Id. And in doing so, it relied on two contextual clues: the words\npreceding “restrain” in the TIA—“enjoin” and “suspend,” both of which are “terms of art in\nequity”—and the “carefully selected list of technical terms” on which “restrain” acts—\n“assessment,” “levy,” and “collection.” Id. The Court explained that to give “restrain” the broad\nmeaning would “defeat the precision” of these contextual clues, and would render several of the\nterms superfluous. Id. Thus, the question that the TIA asks is “whether the relief [sought] to\nsome degree stops ‘assessment, levy or collection,’ not whether it merely inhibits them.” Id. at\n1133 (emphasis added).\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 7\n\n\n With regard to “assessment” and “collection,” the Court noted that it need not\n“comprehensively define these terms” in order to hold that they did not encompass the reporting\nrequirements at issue. Id. at 1129. Nevertheless, the Court explained that “assessment” refers to\n“the official recording of a taxpayer’s liability.” Id. at 1130. “Collection,” in turn, “is the act of\nobtaining payment of taxes due.” Id. While both “might also be understood more broadly,” the\nCourt held that under either the narrow or the broad definition, each is a “separate step in the\ntaxation process” that occurs after the step of reporting to the taxing authority information used\nto determine tax liability. Id. at 1129–31. (“[T]he Federal Tax Code has long treated\ninformation gathering as a phase of tax administration procedure that occurs before assessment,\nlevy, or collection.”).\n\n Based on these definitions, the Supreme Court in Direct Marketing ultimately held that\nthe TIA did not bar the plaintiff’s suit. The plaintiff had sought to enjoin the enforcement of a\nColorado law that required certain retailers to maintain and submit records pertaining to sales on\nwhich the retailers did not collect state sales and use taxes. Id. at 1128, 1134. The Court\nreasoned that while enforcement of the law might “improve Colorado’s ability to assess and\nultimately collect its sales and use taxes from consumers,” the law was focused on information\ngathering as opposed to the discrete, subsequent acts of assessment, levy, and collection. Id. at\n1131. Accordingly, a suit seeking to enjoin its enforcement would, if successful, “merely\ninhibit[]” those acts as opposed to “restrain[ing]” them. Id. at 1133. And thus the merits of the\nplaintiff’s suit could be reached.\n\n Shortly after Direct Marketing, the D.C. Circuit distinguished it in Florida Bankers with\nthen-Judge Kavanaugh writing for the majority. 799 F.3d at 1069. At issue in Florida Bankers\nwere the meanings of “tax” and “for the purpose of” as used in the AIA. See 26 U.S.C.\n§ 7421(a).\n\n With regard to “tax,” the court asked whether that term covers a “penalty” imposed to\nenforce a “tax-related statutory or regulatory requirement.” Fla. Bankers, 799 F.3d at 1067. The\ncourt explained that while “[t]he answer to that question is often no . . . the Tax Code defines\nsome penalties as taxes for purposes of the [AIA].” Id. “In those cases, the [AIA] ordinarily\napplies because the suit, if successful, would invalidate the regulation and thereby directly\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 8\n\n\nprevent [the] collection of [that] tax.” Id. The court held that this is exactly what occurs when\nthe penalty at issue is located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of the Tax Code. Id. In 26 U.S.C.\n§ 6671(a), the Tax Code explicitly defines such penalties as taxes for the purposes of the AIA,\nand that practice has been “clear[ly] and unequivocal[ly]” acknowledged by the Supreme Court.\nId. at 1068. Specifically, in Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, the Court explained:\n\n Congress can, of course, describe something as a penalty but direct that it\n nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the [AIA]. For example, 26 U.S.C.\n § 6671(a) provides that “any reference in this title to ‘tax’ imposed by this title\n shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by”\n Subchapter 68B of the [Tax] Code. Penalties in Subchapter 68B are thus treated\n as taxes under Title 26, which includes the [AIA].\n\n567 U.S. 519, 544 (2012). Thus, the court in Florida Bankers reasoned that the relevant “tax” in\nits AIA analysis was the penalty—located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B—that would be imposed\nupon violation of the challenged regulation. 799 F.3d at 1068.\n\n It is on this basis that the court distinguished Direct Marketing. The penalty in that case\n“was not itself a tax, or at least it was never argued or suggested that the penalty in that case was\nitself a tax.” Id. at 1069. The court explained that “[i]f the penalty here were not itself a tax, the\n[AIA] would not bar this suit. But because this penalty is deemed a tax by Section 6671(a), the\n[AIA] bars this suit as premature.” Id. In other words, unlike in Direct Marketing, the tax in\nFlorida Bankers was not “two or three steps removed from the regulation in question.” Id.\nRather, “because the Code define[d] the penalty as a tax, a tax [was] imposed as a direct\nconsequence of violating the regulation.” Id. And “[i]nvalidating the regulation would directly\nbar collection of that tax.” Id. (emphasis added). This distinction put the complaint in Florida\nBankers “at the heartland of the [AIA].” Id. at 1070.\n\n With regard to “for the purpose of,” the court rejected the argument that even if the\npenalty were a tax, the case was still not within the purview of the AIA because the plaintiffs\nsought relief not from the penalty but from the underlying regulatory mandate. Id. (“[Plaintiffs]\ncontend instead that they are seeking relief from a regulatory mandate that exists separate and\napart from the assessment or collection of taxes.”). The court held that “plaintiffs cannot evade\nthe [AIA] by purporting to challenge only the regulatory aspect of a regulatory tax;” the AIA\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 9\n\n\n“cannot be sidestepped by such nifty wordplay.” Id. And in doing so, the court relied on (1) a\nline of Supreme Court cases describing the “circular” nature of that argument and looking only\nto whether the relief sought “would necessarily preclude” the collection of taxes within the\nmeaning of the AIA, Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. 725, 732 (1974); see also Alexander v.\n“Americans United” Inc., 416 U.S. 752, 760 (1974); Bailey v. George, 259 U.S. 16, 42 (1922),\n(2) the Supreme Court’s “recent[] indicat[ion]” in NFIB that that argument is meritless, see\n567 U.S. at 546, and (3) the policy implications of accepting that argument, see Fla. Bankers,\n799 F.3d at 1071 (“A taxpayer could almost always characterize a challenge to a regulatory tax\nas a challenge to the regulatory component of the tax. That would reduce the [AIA] to dust in\nthe context of challenges to regulatory taxes.”). Id. at 1070–71. Thus, the court refused to give\nany significance to the part of the regulation the plaintiffs purportedly sought to challenge.\n\n Based on these definitions, the court in Florida Bankers held that the AIA barred the\nplaintiffs’ suit. The plaintiffs had sought to enjoin the enforcement of an IRS regulation\nrequiring banks to report certain interest payments made to account holders. Id. at 1067. The\ncourt began with its holding that the relevant tax for its AIA analysis was the penalty that the\nbanks would have to pay if they violated the reporting requirements, not the account-holder taxes\nthe collection of which those requirements were designed to facilitate. Id. at 1068. The court\nthen reasoned that the plaintiffs’ suit would, if successful, “invalidate the reporting requirement\nand restrain (indeed eliminate) the assessment and collection of the tax paid for not complying\nwith [it].” See id. at 1067, 1072. Accordingly, the suit was “for the purpose of restraining the\nassessment or collection of a tax,” and the merits could not be reached. Id.\n\n Against this backdrop, Plaintiff asserts that Direct Marketing controls, analogizing the\nTIA to the AIA and the Colorado law to the Notice. Defendants assert that Florida Bankers,\ndistinguishing Direct Marketing, is more persuasive. We agree with Defendants, as Florida\nBankers is directly on point, consistent with Direct Marketing, and in accordance with a broader\nsurvey of Supreme Court and circuit court precedent. Plaintiff’s reply brief provides a useful\nstructure for illustrating this conclusion.\n\n First, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he purpose of this suit is not to restrain the assessment or\ncollection of taxes.” (Reply Brief for Appellant at 6.) Plaintiff argues that the penalties imposed\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 10\n\n\nfor violation of the Notice’s requirements are not taxes for purposes of the AIA, and that the only\nremaining taxes that the Notice implicates are the “nebulous down-stream” taxes of third parties.\n(Id.) This argument is unpersuasive.\n\n The third-party taxes the collection of which the Notice is designed to facilitate are not\nthe relevant taxes for this AIA analysis. The relevant taxes are instead the penalties imposed for\nviolation of the Notice’s requirements. Like the penalty in Florida Bankers, the penalties here\nare all located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of the Tax Code, and as a result are treated as taxes\nthemselves for purposes of the AIA. The Supreme Court has explained as much. See NFIB,\n567 U.S. at 544. We have held as much. See Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529,\n540 (6th Cr. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by NFIB, 567 U.S. at 519.5 And other circuits\nhave consistently held as much. See, e.g., Nuttelman v. Vossberg, 753 F.2d 712, 714 (8th Cir.\n1985); Herring v. Moore, 735 F.2d 797, 798 (5th Cir. 1984); Souther v. Mihlbachler, 701 F.2d\n131, 132 (10th Cir. 1983); Prof’l Eng’rs, Inc. v. United States, 527 F.2d 597, 599 (4th Cir. 1975).\n\n Second, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he purpose of this suit is not to restrain the assessment\nor collection of taxes.” (Rely Brief for Appellant at 11.) Plaintiff argues that the “information\ngathering” and “records maintenance” requirements of the Notice are focused on the act of\nreporting to the taxing authority information used to determine tax liability, not the discrete,\nsubsequent acts of assessment or collection of that liability. (Id.) This argument misses the\nmark.\n\n\n\n\n 5In Thomas More Law Ctr., we explained at length that:\n In many contexts, the law treats “taxes” and “penalties” as mutually exclusive. . . . [but] [o]ther\n provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, to be sure, show that some “penalties” amount to “taxes”\n for purposes of the [AIA]. Not surprisingly, for example, Chapter 68 of the Revenue Code\n imposes “penalties” on individuals who fail to pay their “taxes.” Less obviously, but to similar\n effect, subchapter B of chapter 68 of the Revenue Code imposes other “penalties” related to the\n enforcement of traditional taxes. Under section 6671, “any reference in this title to ‘tax’ imposed\n by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by [subchapter B\n of chapter 68].” All of these “penalties” thus count as “taxes,” including for purposes of the\n [AIA]. Otherwise, the recalcitrant tax protester could sue to preempt collection of a substantial\n monetary charge (accumulated penalties and interest) but not what will often be a smaller charge\n (the tax owed).\n651 F.3d at 539 (internal citations omitted).\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 11\n\n\n While it is true that information reporting is a separate step in the taxation process that\noccurs before assessment or collection, see Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1130, Plaintiff’s\nargument presupposes that the relevant taxes in this AIA analysis are the third-party taxes the\ncollection of which the Notice is designed to facilitate. As previously discussed, that is incorrect.\nLike the challenged regulation in Florida Bankers, the Notice is indeed “two or three steps\nremoved” from any third-party taxes. 799 F.3d at 1069. But once it is established that the\nrelevant tax is the penalty imposed for violation of the Notice’s requirements, it becomes clear\nthat Plaintiff’s suit is focused on that tax’s assessment or collection. Plaintiff’s suit seeks to\ninvalidate the Notice, which is the entire basis for that tax. If successful, Plaintiff’s suit would\n“restrain (indeed eliminate)” it. Id. at 1067.\n\n Third, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he purpose of this suit is not to restrain the assessment\nor collection of taxes. (Reply Brief for Appellant at 15.) Plaintiff argues that under the narrower\ndefinition of “restrain” articulated in Direct Marketing, its suit would not restrain any tax’s\nassessment or collection. This argument also misses the mark, for the same reason as Plaintiff’s\nprior argument.\n\n If the relevant taxes in this AIA analysis were the third-party taxes, and if we decided that\nthe Direct Marketing definition of “restrain” should be extended from the TIA to the AIA, then\nPlaintiff’s argument would likely have merit. Yet, as previously discussed, the former\nproposition is incorrect. And as a result, we need not engage with the latter. Even assuming\narguendo that the Direct Marketing definition should be extended to the AIA,6 Plaintiff’s suit\n“would have the effect of restraining—fully stopping” the IRS from collecting the penalties\nimposed for violating the Notice’s requirements. See Maze v. Internal Revenue Serv., 862 F.3d\n1087, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added) (also assuming extension of the Direct Marketing\n\n\n 6Whether the Direct Marketing definition should be extended from the TIA to the AIA is unclear. The\nTenth Circuit chose not to do so in Green Solution Retail, Inc. v. United States, 855 F.3d 1111, 1118 (10th Cir.\n2017). In that case, the court explained that one of the two reasons behind the Supreme Court’s choice of the\nnarrower definition in Direct Marketing was the fact that it was surrounded by “enjoin” and “suspend,” both of\nwhich are terms of art in equity, and both of which are absent from the AIA. Id. at 1119. In light of that difference,\nthe court in Green Solution held that Direct Marketing did not implicitly overrule its prior cases applying the broad\ndefinition of “restrain.” Id. at 1116. This circuit has similar precedent. See, e.g., Dickens v. United States, 671 F.2d\n969, 971 (6th Cir. 1982) (“The [AIA] is equally applicable to activities which are intended to or may culminate in\nthe assessment or collection of taxes.”) (internal quotations omitted).\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 12\n\n\ndefinition arguendo). Plaintiff admits as much. (See Rely Brief for Appellant at 7) (“[I]t is true\nthat the IRS certainly could never collect any penalties . . . for noncompliance if Notice 2016-66\nis struck down.”).\n\n Fourth, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he purpose of this suit is not to restrain the assessment\nor collection of taxes.” (Reply Brief for Appellant at 18.) Plaintiff argues that its suit is\nchallenging the Notice’s regulatory requirement and not the penalty. This argument, though\nintuitive at first glance, is unpersuasive.\n\n Any distinction that once existed in the Supreme Court’s AIA jurisprudence between\n“regulatory” taxes and “revenue-raising” taxes appears to have been “abandoned.” Fla. Bankers,\n799 F.3d at 1070; see also Bob Jones, 416 U.S. at 741 n.12. In Bob Jones, the Court instead\nemphasized the effect of the plaintiff’s suit. It held that where the relief sought would\n“necessarily preclude” the assessment or collection of the relevant tax, the suit “falls squarely\nwithin the literal scope” of the AIA and federal courts lack jurisdiction over it. Bob Jones,\n416 U.S. at 731. Yet, the Court has made clear that the purpose of the suit is still a factor in any\nAIA analysis. In Bob Jones, the Court noted that there was little doubt that a “primary purpose\nof [the suit]” was to prevent assessment or collection of the relevant tax, regardless of how the\nchallenge was characterized. Id. at 738. And in Alexander, the Court similarly noted that the\n“obvious purpose of [the suit]” was to prevent assessment or collection of the relevant tax,\nregardless of how the challenge was characterized. 416 U.S. at 761.\n\n The Court thus seems willing to infer a purpose to restrain the assessment or collection of\ntaxes in instances where it appears that the plaintiff is—in the words of the D.C. Circuit—trying\nto “sidestep” the AIA with “nifty wordplay.” Fla. Bankers, 799 F.3d at 1070; see also\nAlexander, 416 U.S. at 761 (“The [plaintiff’s purported] goal is merely a restatement of the [the\nplaintiff’s actual goal] and can be accomplished only by restraining the assessment and\ncollection of a tax in contravention of [the AIA].”); Z Street v. Koskinen, 791 F.3d 24, 28–30\n(D.C. Cir. 2015) (“In other words, unlike the plaintiffs in Bob Jones and [Alexander], Z Street\ndoes not have the ‘obvious purpose’ of [restraining the assessment of collection of taxes].”).\nRelying largely on these cases, the court in Florida Bankers paid even less mind to the subjective\npurpose of the suit, holding unequivocally that “[a] challenge to a regulatory tax comes within\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 13\n\n\nthe scope of the [AIA], even if the plaintiff claims to be targeting the regulatory aspect of the\nregulatory tax.” 799 F.3d at 1070–71. The court explained that a challenge to the regulatory\naspect of a regulatory tax is “necessarily” also a challenge to the tax aspect of a regulatory tax\nbecause invalidating the former would “necessarily” invalidate latter. Id. at 1071.\n\n Nevertheless, a panel of this Court recently seemed prepared to recognize the distinction\nurged by Plaintiff and subsequently rejected by the Florida Bankers court. See Autocam Corp. v.\nSebelius, 730 F.3d 618, 622 (6th Cir. 2013), vacated by Autocam Corp. v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct.\n2901 (2014) (“The plaintiffs seek to enjoin a part of the coverage requirements imposed by the\n[ACA] mandate, not the IRS’s mechanism for collecting ‘tax’ from noncompliant employers.\nSuch suits are common in other regulatory contexts . . . .”). But Autocam was decided before\nFlorida Bankers, dedicated few words to its AIA analysis, and in any event, having been vacated\nby the Supreme Court, is no longer good law. See Hill v. Marshall, 962 F.2d 1209, 1213 (6th\nCir. 1992). Additional cases cited by Plaintiff and by the dissent in Florida Bankers in support\nof this distinction are similarly unhelpful.7\n\n Ultimately, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s rule favoring “clear boundaries” in\nthe interpretation of jurisdictional statutes, see Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1131, we find the\nD.C. Circuit’s recent, unequivocal pronouncement on this issue in Florida Bankers persuasive.\nAs the Supreme Court has explained “time and again,” the AIA is “more than a pleading\nexercise,” and to allow Plaintiff’s argument to succeed would “reduce the [AIA] to dust in the\ncontext of challenges to regulatory taxes.” Fla. Bankers, 779 F.3d at 1071. A challenge to a\nregulatory tax comes within the scope of the AIA, even if the plaintiff claims to be targeting the\nregulatory aspect of the regulatory tax, because a challenge to the regulatory aspect of a\nregulatory tax is necessarily also a challenge to the tax aspect of a regulatory tax. Id.\nInvalidating the former would “necessarily” invalidate the latter. Id.\n\n 7In Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1, 8–9 (D.C. Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by NFIB, 567 U.S.\nat 519, the D.C. Circuit noted that “[t]he harms appellants allege . . . exist as a result of the [ACA coverage]\nmandate, not the penalty. . . . The individual mandate and the shared responsibility payment create different legal\nobligations, for different categories of people, at different times.” But the D.C. Circuit’s more recent decision in\nFlorida Bankers deemed that passage dicta. See 799 F.3d at 1072 n.3. Additionally, in Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d\n654, 669 (7th Cir. 2013) and Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1127 (10th Cir. 2013), the courts\nemphasized that the regulation at issue was a separate provision of the U.S. Code structured not as a predicate to the\nimposition of a tax, but as a mandate enforceable by a variety of different mechanisms. That is not the case here.\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 14\n\n\n In sum, we hold that Plaintiff’s complaint seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Notice\nis properly characterized as a “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of\nany tax.” RYO, 696 F.3d at 471 (quoting 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)). Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is\nwithin the purview of the AIA and the district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction\nover it unless an exception applies.8\n\n 2. Whether this case falls into an exception to the AIA\n\n As noted above, the statutory and judicial exceptions to the AIA are few and\ncircumscribed. See RYO, 696 F.3d at 471. Plaintiff asserts that this case falls into the judicial\nexception created by the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984). In\nthat case, South Carolina sought to enjoin a federal law that made interest on state-issued bearer\nbonds taxable. Id. at 370. The Court allowed the merits of this challenge to be reached, even\nthough it was within the purview of the AIA, because there was no “alternative legal avenue” by\nwhich South Carolina could challenge the legality of the tax. Id. at 373. South Carolina did not\nbear the tax itself—the bondholders did—and as a result South Carolina lacked the legal avenues\navailable to the bondholders. Id. at 378. Without a newly crafted exception to the AIA, it had no\nway to challenge the law’s constitutionality. Id.\n\n\n\n 8The dissent poses a hypothetical that it finds problematic in light of our holding: a reporting requirement\ndiscriminatorily imposed upon a protected class and enforced by a penalty located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of\nthe Tax Code. See Dis. Op. at 19. According to the dissent, the AIA could not bar a pre-emptive challenge to this\nrequirement, “without warping the meaning of the statute beyond recognition,” at least in part because the purpose\nof the suit plainly would be “to end discriminatory action by the Government,” not to enjoin the assessment or\ncollection of a tax. Id.\n What troubles the dissent about its hypothetical result is not entirely clear. To the extent that it is the clarity\nof the purpose of such a suit that troubles the dissent, the same purpose would clearly underlie, for instance, a pre-\nemptive challenge to tax investigations discriminatorily targeted at a protected class; yet that challenge would likely\nbe barred by the AIA. See, e.g., Clavizzazo v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“[U]nder\nthe [AIA], a plaintiff cannot even seek an injunction preventing the IRS from investigating tax liabilities in an\nallegedly discriminatory or harassing fashion.”). To the extent that it is the constitutional nature of such a suit that\ntroubles the dissent, “decisions of [the Supreme] Court make it unmistakably clear that the constitutional nature of a\ntaxpayer’s claim . . . is of no consequence” under the AIA; “the taxpayer must succumb to an unconstitutional tax,\nand seek recourse only after it has been unlawfully exacted.” United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Min. Co.,\n553 U.S. 1, 10 (2008) (quotation omitted) (alteration in original). And to the extent that it is the treatment of certain\npenalties as taxes for purposes of the AIA that troubles the dissent, we are bound by the Supreme Court’s allowance\nof that practice, whatever its merits or shortcomings. See NFIB, 567 U.S. at 544 (“Congress can, of course, describe\nsomething as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the [AIA].”).\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 15\n\n\n However, as these facts suggest, and as we have explained, “this exception is very\nnarrow.” RYO, 696 F.3d at 472. “Because of the strong policy animating the [AIA], and the\nsympathetic, almost unique facts in South Carolina, courts have construed the South Carolina\nexception very narrowly, undermining [the] plaintiff’s efforts to fit its own claims within the\nconfines of this exception.” Id. (quotation omitted). As in RYO, this case “is distinguishable\nfrom South Carolina in various ways.” Id.\n\n Most significantly, the Supreme Court contrasted the facts of South Carolina with cases\nin which plaintiffs have “the alternative remedy of a suit for a refund.” 465 U.S. at 374–75;\naccord RYO, 696 F.3d at 472. Plaintiff does not contest that it has this alterative remedy.\nRather, Plaintiff challenges whether that remedy is sufficiently meaningful. Plaintiff contends\nthat having to “break the law” by violating the Notice, and then sue for a refund, is “no remedy\nat all.” (Brief for Appellant at 38–40.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention however, that is\nexactly what the AIA is designed to require. The AIA “serves two related purposes,” Dickens v.\nUnited States, 671 F.2d 969, 971 (6th Cir. 1982), “to permit the United States to assess and\ncollect taxes alleged to be due without judicial intervention, and to require that the legal right to\ndisputed sums be determined in a suit for refund.” Williams Packing, 370 U.S. 1 at 7. Thus, we\nhold that Plaintiff’s complaint does not fall into the South Carolina exception to the AIA.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n The broader legal context in which this case has been brought is not lost on this Court.\nDefendants “do not have a great history of complying with APA procedures, having claimed for\nseveral decades that their rules and regulations are exempt from those requirements.” Hickman\n& Gerska, supra, at 1712–13. And despite the jurisdictional nature of this appeal, Plaintiff has\nmade its thoughts on the merits abundantly clear, emphasizing that “Notice 2016-66’s Issuance\nand Enforcement is an Obvious Violation of the APA.” (Reply Brief for Appellant at 4.) But\nthat does not in and of itself give federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over suits\nseeking to enjoin the assessment or collection of taxes. Absent further instruction from Congress\nor the Supreme Court, such suits are barred by the AIA.\n\n For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal.\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 16\n\n\n _________________\n\n DISSENT\n _________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: CIC SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; Department of Treasury; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-22\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0100p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n CIC SERVICES, LLC, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5019\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; DEPARTMENT OF │\\n TREASURY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.\\n No. 3:17-cv-00110—Travis R. McDonough, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: October 19, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 22, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.*\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Adam R. Webber, FALKE & DUNPHY, LLC, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant. Teresa\\nE. McLaughlin, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for\\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Adam R. Webber, FALKE & DUNPHY, LLC, Dayton, Ohio, for\\nAppellant. Teresa E. McLaughlin, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, Bethany B. Hauser, UNITED\\nSTATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. John J. Vecchione,\\nCAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.\\n\\n CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SUHRHEINRICH, J., joined.\\nNALBANDIAN, J. (pp. 16–24), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\\n\\n\\n\\n *The Honorable Damon J. Keith, who participated in oral argument as a member of the original panel, died\\non April 28, 2019. Judge Suhrheinrich replaced Judge Keith on this panel for the consideration and decision of this\\ncase.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff CIC Services, LLC appeals the district court’s November\\n2, 2017 order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject\\nmatter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants’ Notice 2016-66, 2016-47\\nI.R.B. 745 was promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et\\nseq. and the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and seeks to enjoin its\\nenforcement. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal.\\n\\n BACKGROUND\\n\\n Factual Background\\n\\n As a part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Congress delegated authority to the\\nInternal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to identify and gather information about potential tax shelters.\\nSee 26 U.S.C. § 6707A. In exercising that authority, the IRS requires taxpayers and certain third\\nparties to maintain and submit records pertaining to any “reportable transaction[s].” Id.\\n§ 6707A(c). Reportable transactions are those transactions deemed as such by IRS regulations.\\nId.\\n\\n Failure to adhere to these IRS requirements can result in significant penalties. For\\ninstance, a taxpayer who fails to submit to the IRS a return listing his or her reportable\\ntransactions faces a penalty of 75% of his or her tax savings resulting from those transactions,\\nfrom a minimum of $5,000 to a maximum of $200,000. Id. §§ 6011, 6707A(b). A “material\\nadvisor”—one who provides material aid to a taxpayer in his or her carrying out reportable\\ntransactions and who derives a threshold amount of gross income from that aid, see id.\\n§ 6111(b)—faces similar penalties. For instance, a material advisor who fails to submit to the\\nIRS a return listing the reportable transactions in which he or she aided faces a penalty of\\nbetween $50,000 and $200,000. Id. §§ 6111(a), 6707(b). And a material advisor who fails to\\nmaintain a list of the taxpayers that he or she aided in carrying out reportable transactions faces a\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\npenalty of $10,000 per day if the list is not produced within 20 business days of a request from\\nthe IRS. Id. §§ 6112(a), 6708(a).\\n\\n On November 21, 2016, Defendants published Notice 2016-66 (the “Notice”).1 See\\n2016-47 I.R.B. 745.The Notice identified certain “micro-captive transactions” as “transactions of\\ninterest,” a subset of reportable transactions.2 Id.; see also 26 C.F.R. § 1.6011-4(b). The Notice\\nexplained that these transactions have “a potential for tax avoidance or evasion,” but that the IRS\\n“lack[s] sufficient information” to distinguish between those that are lawful and those that are\\nunlawful. 2016-47 I.R.B. 745. By deeming these transactions to be reportable transactions, the\\nNotice imposed the requirements and potential penalties noted above on taxpayers engaging in\\nthem, and on material advisors aiding in them. Id.\\n\\n Procedural History\\n\\n On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff, a material advisor to taxpayers engaging in micro-captive\\ntransactions, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of\\nTennessee. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants promulgated Notice 2016-66 in\\nviolation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. and the\\nCongressional Review Act (“CRA”), 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and seeks to enjoin its enforcement.\\nSpecifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Notice (1) is a legislative rule that required notice-and-\\ncomment rulemaking, (2) is arbitrary and capricious, and therefore ultra vires, and (3) is a rule\\nthat required submission for congressional review before it could go into effect. Plaintiff also\\nfiled a motion for a preliminary injunction.\\n\\n On April 21, 2017, the district court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary\\ninjunction, reasoning that it would not be in the public interest and that Plaintiff was unlikely to\\nsucceed on the merits. Defendants then moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of\\n\\n\\n 1Notice2016-66 was amended by Notice 2017-08, but only with regard to various deadlines. See 2017-3\\nI.R.B. 423. Accordingly, we refer only to Notice 2016-66.\\n 2Micro-captive transactions are “a type of transaction . . . in which a taxpayer attempts to reduce the\\naggregate taxable income of the taxpayer, related persons, or both, using contracts that the parties treat as insurance\\ncontracts and a related company that the parties treat as a captive insurance company.” Id. The details of these\\ntransactions and their tax implications for those that engage in them are not relevant to this appeal. If desired, more\\ninformation can be found at 26 U.S.C. § 831(b) and at IRS News Release IR-2018-62 (Mar. 19, 2018).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nsubject matter jurisdiction. Defendants asserted that Plaintiff’s complaint was barred by the\\nAnti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) and the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act,\\n28 U.S.C. § 2201 (collectively, the “AIA”),3 which divest federal district courts of jurisdiction\\nover suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” On November\\n2, 2017, the district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter\\njurisdiction.\\n\\n This appeal followed.\\n\\n DISCUSSION\\n\\nI. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review de novo questions of subject matter jurisdiction, including whether a\\ncomplaint is barred by the AIA. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Chester, Wilcox & Saxbe, 589 F.3d\\n835, 843 (6th Cir. 2009). In reviewing a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to\\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), we accept all material allegations in the complaint as\\ntrue and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. United\\nStates v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 1994).\\n\\nII. Analysis\\n\\n A. The AIA\\n\\n The AIA provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection\\nof any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). While there\\nexist some statutory and judicial exceptions to this prohibition, they are few and circumscribed.\\nSee RYO Mach., LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 696 F.3d 467, 470 (6th Cir. 2012) (“With few\\nexceptions, no court has jurisdiction over a suit to preemptively challenge a tax.”). Thus,\\n“whether an injunction can legally issue under the AIA” requires only two inquiries. Id. at 471.\\n“First, we must consider whether the . . . complaint[] [is] within the purview of the AIA as a ‘suit\\nfor the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.’” Id. (quoting 26 U.S.C.\\n\\n 3 The Anti-Injunction Act and the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act are “to be interpreted\\ncoterminously.” Ecclesiastical Order of the ISM of AM, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Serv., 725 F.2d 398, 404–05 (6th\\nCir. 1984). For simplicity, we refer to both as the “AIA.”\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n§ 7421(a)). Second, “[i]f so, we must [consider] whether [the] case falls into an exception to the\\nAIA that would [nevertheless] allow us to [reach] the merits.”4 Id.\\n\\n The problem with these ostensibly straightforward inquiries is that “courts lack an\\noverarching theory of the AIA’s meaning and scope against which to evaluate individual\\n[complaints].” Kristin E. Hickman & Gerald Kerska, Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act,\\n103 Va. L. Rev. 1683, 1686 (2017). At times, the Supreme Court has given the AIA “literal\\nforce,” without regard to the character of the tax, the characterization of the preemptive\\nchallenge to it, or other non-textual factors. Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 742\\n(1974). At other times, it has given the AIA “almost literal” force, considering such factors with\\nan eye towards furthering the AIA’s underlying purposes. Id. at 737, 742. The result, according\\nto some commentators, has been “jurisprudential chaos.” Hickman & Kerska, supra, at 1686.\\n\\n We attempt to find some order amidst the chaos, addressing each of the AIA inquiries in\\nturn.\\n\\n 1. Whether Plaintiff’s complaint is within the purview of the AIA\\n\\n Whether a complaint is within the purview of the AIA depends, commonsensically, on\\nwhether it is properly characterized as a “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or\\ncollection of any tax.” RYO, 696 F.3d at 471 (quoting 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)). Plaintiff argues that\\nits complaint is not a suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of taxes.\\nDefendants argue that it is. Reducing the briefs to their cores, Plaintiff asserts that the Supreme\\nCourt’s recent decision in Direct Marketing Ass’n v. Brohl, 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1124 (2015)\\ncontrols this issue, while Defendants assert that the D.C. Circuit’s subsequent decision in Florida\\nBankers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 799 F.3d 1065 (D.C. Cir. 2015), distinguishing\\nDirect Marketing, is more persuasive. We agree with Defendants and hold that Plaintiff’s\\ncomplaint is within the purview of the AIA.\\n\\n\\n\\n 4In this way, the AIA “creates a narrow exception to the general administrative law principle that pre-\\nenforcement review of agency regulations is available in federal court.” Fla. Bankers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the\\nTreasury, 799 F.3d 1065, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2015); see also Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 736 (1974).\\nCf. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140–41 (1967).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n In Direct Marketing, the Supreme Court analyzed the scope of the Tax Injunction Act\\n(“TIA”), which provides that no federal district court shall “enjoin, suspend, or restrain the\\nassessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient\\nremedy may be had in the court of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Although the TIA concerns\\nstate as opposed to federal taxes, it was “modeled on” the AIA and the Supreme Court has long\\nlooked to one in construing the other. Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1129; see also Enochs v.\\nWilliams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U.S. 1, 6 (1962) (“The enactment of the comparable\\n[TIA] . . . throws light on the proper construction to be given [to the AIA].”). The Court began\\nits opinion in Direct Marketing by reaffirming this close connection between the two Acts, and\\nmaking clear that “[it] assume[s] that words used in both Acts are generally used in the same\\nway.” 135 S. Ct. at 1129.\\n\\n At issue in Direct Marketing were the meanings of “restrain,” “assessment,” “levy,” and\\n“collection,” all words, apart from “levy,” used in both the TIA and the AIA. See 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1341; 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a).\\n\\n With regard to “restrain,” the Court explained that “standing alone [it] can have several\\nmeanings.” Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1132. One is a “broad meaning” that “captures\\norders that merely inhibit acts of assessment, levy and collection.” Id. “Another, narrower\\nmeaning, however, is ‘to prohibit from action; to put compulsion upon . . . [or] to enjoin,’” and\\nthis meaning “captures only those orders that stop (or perhaps compel) acts of assessment, levy\\nand collection.” Id. (quotation omitted). The Court held that the TIA uses “restrain” in the\\nlatter, narrower sense. Id. And in doing so, it relied on two contextual clues: the words\\npreceding “restrain” in the TIA—“enjoin” and “suspend,” both of which are “terms of art in\\nequity”—and the “carefully selected list of technical terms” on which “restrain” acts—\\n“assessment,” “levy,” and “collection.” Id. The Court explained that to give “restrain” the broad\\nmeaning would “defeat the precision” of these contextual clues, and would render several of the\\nterms superfluous. Id. Thus, the question that the TIA asks is “whether the relief [sought] to\\nsome degree stops ‘assessment, levy or collection,’ not whether it merely inhibits them.” Id. at\\n1133 (emphasis added).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n With regard to “assessment” and “collection,” the Court noted that it need not\\n“comprehensively define these terms” in order to hold that they did not encompass the reporting\\nrequirements at issue. Id. at 1129. Nevertheless, the Court explained that “assessment” refers to\\n“the official recording of a taxpayer’s liability.” Id. at 1130. “Collection,” in turn, “is the act of\\nobtaining payment of taxes due.” Id. While both “might also be understood more broadly,” the\\nCourt held that under either the narrow or the broad definition, each is a “separate step in the\\ntaxation process” that occurs after the step of reporting to the taxing authority information used\\nto determine tax liability. Id. at 1129–31. (“[T]he Federal Tax Code has long treated\\ninformation gathering as a phase of tax administration procedure that occurs before assessment,\\nlevy, or collection.”).\\n\\n Based on these definitions, the Supreme Court in Direct Marketing ultimately held that\\nthe TIA did not bar the plaintiff’s suit. The plaintiff had sought to enjoin the enforcement of a\\nColorado law that required certain retailers to maintain and submit records pertaining to sales on\\nwhich the retailers did not collect state sales and use taxes. Id. at 1128, 1134. The Court\\nreasoned that while enforcement of the law might “improve Colorado’s ability to assess and\\nultimately collect its sales and use taxes from consumers,” the law was focused on information\\ngathering as opposed to the discrete, subsequent acts of assessment, levy, and collection. Id. at\\n1131. Accordingly, a suit seeking to enjoin its enforcement would, if successful, “merely\\ninhibit[]” those acts as opposed to “restrain[ing]” them. Id. at 1133. And thus the merits of the\\nplaintiff’s suit could be reached.\\n\\n Shortly after Direct Marketing, the D.C. Circuit distinguished it in Florida Bankers with\\nthen-Judge Kavanaugh writing for the majority. 799 F.3d at 1069. At issue in Florida Bankers\\nwere the meanings of “tax” and “for the purpose of” as used in the AIA. See 26 U.S.C.\\n§ 7421(a).\\n\\n With regard to “tax,” the court asked whether that term covers a “penalty” imposed to\\nenforce a “tax-related statutory or regulatory requirement.” Fla. Bankers, 799 F.3d at 1067. The\\ncourt explained that while “[t]he answer to that question is often no . . . the Tax Code defines\\nsome penalties as taxes for purposes of the [AIA].” Id. “In those cases, the [AIA] ordinarily\\napplies because the suit, if successful, would invalidate the regulation and thereby directly\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nprevent [the] collection of [that] tax.” Id. The court held that this is exactly what occurs when\\nthe penalty at issue is located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of the Tax Code. Id. In 26 U.S.C.\\n§ 6671(a), the Tax Code explicitly defines such penalties as taxes for the purposes of the AIA,\\nand that practice has been “clear[ly] and unequivocal[ly]” acknowledged by the Supreme Court.\\nId. at 1068. Specifically, in Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, the Court explained:\\n\\n Congress can, of course, describe something as a penalty but direct that it\\n nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the [AIA]. For example, 26 U.S.C.\\n § 6671(a) provides that “any reference in this title to ‘tax’ imposed by this title\\n shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by”\\n Subchapter 68B of the [Tax] Code. Penalties in Subchapter 68B are thus treated\\n as taxes under Title 26, which includes the [AIA].\\n\\n567 U.S. 519, 544 (2012). Thus, the court in Florida Bankers reasoned that the relevant “tax” in\\nits AIA analysis was the penalty—located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B—that would be imposed\\nupon violation of the challenged regulation. 799 F.3d at 1068.\\n\\n It is on this basis that the court distinguished Direct Marketing. The penalty in that case\\n“was not itself a tax, or at least it was never argued or suggested that the penalty in that case was\\nitself a tax.” Id. at 1069. The court explained that “[i]f the penalty here were not itself a tax, the\\n[AIA] would not bar this suit. But because this penalty is deemed a tax by Section 6671(a), the\\n[AIA] bars this suit as premature.” Id. In other words, unlike in Direct Marketing, the tax in\\nFlorida Bankers was not “two or three steps removed from the regulation in question.” Id.\\nRather, “because the Code define[d] the penalty as a tax, a tax [was] imposed as a direct\\nconsequence of violating the regulation.” Id. And “[i]nvalidating the regulation would directly\\nbar collection of that tax.” Id. (emphasis added). This distinction put the complaint in Florida\\nBankers “at the heartland of the [AIA].” Id. at 1070.\\n\\n With regard to “for the purpose of,” the court rejected the argument that even if the\\npenalty were a tax, the case was still not within the purview of the AIA because the plaintiffs\\nsought relief not from the penalty but from the underlying regulatory mandate. Id. (“[Plaintiffs]\\ncontend instead that they are seeking relief from a regulatory mandate that exists separate and\\napart from the assessment or collection of taxes.”). The court held that “plaintiffs cannot evade\\nthe [AIA] by purporting to challenge only the regulatory aspect of a regulatory tax;” the AIA\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n“cannot be sidestepped by such nifty wordplay.” Id. And in doing so, the court relied on (1) a\\nline of Supreme Court cases describing the “circular” nature of that argument and looking only\\nto whether the relief sought “would necessarily preclude” the collection of taxes within the\\nmeaning of the AIA, Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. 725, 732 (1974); see also Alexander v.\\n“Americans United” Inc., 416 U.S. 752, 760 (1974); Bailey v. George, 259 U.S. 16, 42 (1922),\\n(2) the Supreme Court’s “recent[] indicat[ion]” in NFIB that that argument is meritless, see\\n567 U.S. at 546, and (3) the policy implications of accepting that argument, see Fla. Bankers,\\n799 F.3d at 1071 (“A taxpayer could almost always characterize a challenge to a regulatory tax\\nas a challenge to the regulatory component of the tax. That would reduce the [AIA] to dust in\\nthe context of challenges to regulatory taxes.”). Id. at 1070–71. Thus, the court refused to give\\nany significance to the part of the regulation the plaintiffs purportedly sought to challenge.\\n\\n Based on these definitions, the court in Florida Bankers held that the AIA barred the\\nplaintiffs’ suit. The plaintiffs had sought to enjoin the enforcement of an IRS regulation\\nrequiring banks to report certain interest payments made to account holders. Id. at 1067. The\\ncourt began with its holding that the relevant tax for its AIA analysis was the penalty that the\\nbanks would have to pay if they violated the reporting requirements, not the account-holder taxes\\nthe collection of which those requirements were designed to facilitate. Id. at 1068. The court\\nthen reasoned that the plaintiffs’ suit would, if successful, “invalidate the reporting requirement\\nand restrain (indeed eliminate) the assessment and collection of the tax paid for not complying\\nwith [it].” See id. at 1067, 1072. Accordingly, the suit was “for the purpose of restraining the\\nassessment or collection of a tax,” and the merits could not be reached. Id.\\n\\n Against this backdrop, Plaintiff asserts that Direct Marketing controls, analogizing the\\nTIA to the AIA and the Colorado law to the Notice. Defendants assert that Florida Bankers,\\ndistinguishing Direct Marketing, is more persuasive. We agree with Defendants, as Florida\\nBankers is directly on point, consistent with Direct Marketing, and in accordance with a broader\\nsurvey of Supreme Court and circuit court precedent. Plaintiff’s reply brief provides a useful\\nstructure for illustrating this conclusion.\\n\\n First, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he purpose of this suit is not to restrain the assessment or\\ncollection of taxes.” (Reply Brief for Appellant at 6.) Plaintiff argues that the penalties imposed\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nfor violation of the Notice’s requirements are not taxes for purposes of the AIA, and that the only\\nremaining taxes that the Notice implicates are the “nebulous down-stream” taxes of third parties.\\n(Id.) This argument is unpersuasive.\\n\\n The third-party taxes the collection of which the Notice is designed to facilitate are not\\nthe relevant taxes for this AIA analysis. The relevant taxes are instead the penalties imposed for\\nviolation of the Notice’s requirements. Like the penalty in Florida Bankers, the penalties here\\nare all located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of the Tax Code, and as a result are treated as taxes\\nthemselves for purposes of the AIA. The Supreme Court has explained as much. See NFIB,\\n567 U.S. at 544. We have held as much. See Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529,\\n540 (6th Cr. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by NFIB, 567 U.S. at 519.5 And other circuits\\nhave consistently held as much. See, e.g., Nuttelman v. Vossberg, 753 F.2d 712, 714 (8th Cir.\\n1985); Herring v. Moore, 735 F.2d 797, 798 (5th Cir. 1984); Souther v. Mihlbachler, 701 F.2d\\n131, 132 (10th Cir. 1983); Prof’l Eng’rs, Inc. v. United States, 527 F.2d 597, 599 (4th Cir. 1975).\\n\\n Second, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he purpose of this suit is not to restrain the assessment\\nor collection of taxes.” (Rely Brief for Appellant at 11.) Plaintiff argues that the “information\\ngathering” and “records maintenance” requirements of the Notice are focused on the act of\\nreporting to the taxing authority information used to determine tax liability, not the discrete,\\nsubsequent acts of assessment or collection of that liability. (Id.) This argument misses the\\nmark.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 5In Thomas More Law Ctr., we explained at length that:\\n In many contexts, the law treats “taxes” and “penalties” as mutually exclusive. . . . [but] [o]ther\\n provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, to be sure, show that some “penalties” amount to “taxes”\\n for purposes of the [AIA]. Not surprisingly, for example, Chapter 68 of the Revenue Code\\n imposes “penalties” on individuals who fail to pay their “taxes.” Less obviously, but to similar\\n effect, subchapter B of chapter 68 of the Revenue Code imposes other “penalties” related to the\\n enforcement of traditional taxes. Under section 6671, “any reference in this title to ‘tax’ imposed\\n by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by [subchapter B\\n of chapter 68].” All of these “penalties” thus count as “taxes,” including for purposes of the\\n [AIA]. Otherwise, the recalcitrant tax protester could sue to preempt collection of a substantial\\n monetary charge (accumulated penalties and interest) but not what will often be a smaller charge\\n (the tax owed).\\n651 F.3d at 539 (internal citations omitted).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n While it is true that information reporting is a separate step in the taxation process that\\noccurs before assessment or collection, see Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1130, Plaintiff’s\\nargument presupposes that the relevant taxes in this AIA analysis are the third-party taxes the\\ncollection of which the Notice is designed to facilitate. As previously discussed, that is incorrect.\\nLike the challenged regulation in Florida Bankers, the Notice is indeed “two or three steps\\nremoved” from any third-party taxes. 799 F.3d at 1069. But once it is established that the\\nrelevant tax is the penalty imposed for violation of the Notice’s requirements, it becomes clear\\nthat Plaintiff’s suit is focused on that tax’s assessment or collection. Plaintiff’s suit seeks to\\ninvalidate the Notice, which is the entire basis for that tax. If successful, Plaintiff’s suit would\\n“restrain (indeed eliminate)” it. Id. at 1067.\\n\\n Third, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he purpose of this suit is not to restrain the assessment\\nor collection of taxes. (Reply Brief for Appellant at 15.) Plaintiff argues that under the narrower\\ndefinition of “restrain” articulated in Direct Marketing, its suit would not restrain any tax’s\\nassessment or collection. This argument also misses the mark, for the same reason as Plaintiff’s\\nprior argument.\\n\\n If the relevant taxes in this AIA analysis were the third-party taxes, and if we decided that\\nthe Direct Marketing definition of “restrain” should be extended from the TIA to the AIA, then\\nPlaintiff’s argument would likely have merit. Yet, as previously discussed, the former\\nproposition is incorrect. And as a result, we need not engage with the latter. Even assuming\\narguendo that the Direct Marketing definition should be extended to the AIA,6 Plaintiff’s suit\\n“would have the effect of restraining—fully stopping” the IRS from collecting the penalties\\nimposed for violating the Notice’s requirements. See Maze v. Internal Revenue Serv., 862 F.3d\\n1087, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added) (also assuming extension of the Direct Marketing\\n\\n\\n 6Whether the Direct Marketing definition should be extended from the TIA to the AIA is unclear. The\\nTenth Circuit chose not to do so in Green Solution Retail, Inc. v. United States, 855 F.3d 1111, 1118 (10th Cir.\\n2017). In that case, the court explained that one of the two reasons behind the Supreme Court’s choice of the\\nnarrower definition in Direct Marketing was the fact that it was surrounded by “enjoin” and “suspend,” both of\\nwhich are terms of art in equity, and both of which are absent from the AIA. Id. at 1119. In light of that difference,\\nthe court in Green Solution held that Direct Marketing did not implicitly overrule its prior cases applying the broad\\ndefinition of “restrain.” Id. at 1116. This circuit has similar precedent. See, e.g., Dickens v. United States, 671 F.2d\\n969, 971 (6th Cir. 1982) (“The [AIA] is equally applicable to activities which are intended to or may culminate in\\nthe assessment or collection of taxes.”) (internal quotations omitted).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\ndefinition arguendo). Plaintiff admits as much. (See Rely Brief for Appellant at 7) (“[I]t is true\\nthat the IRS certainly could never collect any penalties . . . for noncompliance if Notice 2016-66\\nis struck down.”).\\n\\n Fourth, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he purpose of this suit is not to restrain the assessment\\nor collection of taxes.” (Reply Brief for Appellant at 18.) Plaintiff argues that its suit is\\nchallenging the Notice’s regulatory requirement and not the penalty. This argument, though\\nintuitive at first glance, is unpersuasive.\\n\\n Any distinction that once existed in the Supreme Court’s AIA jurisprudence between\\n“regulatory” taxes and “revenue-raising” taxes appears to have been “abandoned.” Fla. Bankers,\\n799 F.3d at 1070; see also Bob Jones, 416 U.S. at 741 n.12. In Bob Jones, the Court instead\\nemphasized the effect of the plaintiff’s suit. It held that where the relief sought would\\n“necessarily preclude” the assessment or collection of the relevant tax, the suit “falls squarely\\nwithin the literal scope” of the AIA and federal courts lack jurisdiction over it. Bob Jones,\\n416 U.S. at 731. Yet, the Court has made clear that the purpose of the suit is still a factor in any\\nAIA analysis. In Bob Jones, the Court noted that there was little doubt that a “primary purpose\\nof [the suit]” was to prevent assessment or collection of the relevant tax, regardless of how the\\nchallenge was characterized. Id. at 738. And in Alexander, the Court similarly noted that the\\n“obvious purpose of [the suit]” was to prevent assessment or collection of the relevant tax,\\nregardless of how the challenge was characterized. 416 U.S. at 761.\\n\\n The Court thus seems willing to infer a purpose to restrain the assessment or collection of\\ntaxes in instances where it appears that the plaintiff is—in the words of the D.C. Circuit—trying\\nto “sidestep” the AIA with “nifty wordplay.” Fla. Bankers, 799 F.3d at 1070; see also\\nAlexander, 416 U.S. at 761 (“The [plaintiff’s purported] goal is merely a restatement of the [the\\nplaintiff’s actual goal] and can be accomplished only by restraining the assessment and\\ncollection of a tax in contravention of [the AIA].”); Z Street v. Koskinen, 791 F.3d 24, 28–30\\n(D.C. Cir. 2015) (“In other words, unlike the plaintiffs in Bob Jones and [Alexander], Z Street\\ndoes not have the ‘obvious purpose’ of [restraining the assessment of collection of taxes].”).\\nRelying largely on these cases, the court in Florida Bankers paid even less mind to the subjective\\npurpose of the suit, holding unequivocally that “[a] challenge to a regulatory tax comes within\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nthe scope of the [AIA], even if the plaintiff claims to be targeting the regulatory aspect of the\\nregulatory tax.” 799 F.3d at 1070–71. The court explained that a challenge to the regulatory\\naspect of a regulatory tax is “necessarily” also a challenge to the tax aspect of a regulatory tax\\nbecause invalidating the former would “necessarily” invalidate latter. Id. at 1071.\\n\\n Nevertheless, a panel of this Court recently seemed prepared to recognize the distinction\\nurged by Plaintiff and subsequently rejected by the Florida Bankers court. See Autocam Corp. v.\\nSebelius, 730 F.3d 618, 622 (6th Cir. 2013), vacated by Autocam Corp. v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct.\\n2901 (2014) (“The plaintiffs seek to enjoin a part of the coverage requirements imposed by the\\n[ACA] mandate, not the IRS’s mechanism for collecting ‘tax’ from noncompliant employers.\\nSuch suits are common in other regulatory contexts . . . .”). But Autocam was decided before\\nFlorida Bankers, dedicated few words to its AIA analysis, and in any event, having been vacated\\nby the Supreme Court, is no longer good law. See Hill v. Marshall, 962 F.2d 1209, 1213 (6th\\nCir. 1992). Additional cases cited by Plaintiff and by the dissent in Florida Bankers in support\\nof this distinction are similarly unhelpful.7\\n\\n Ultimately, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s rule favoring “clear boundaries” in\\nthe interpretation of jurisdictional statutes, see Direct Marketing, 135 S. Ct. at 1131, we find the\\nD.C. Circuit’s recent, unequivocal pronouncement on this issue in Florida Bankers persuasive.\\nAs the Supreme Court has explained “time and again,” the AIA is “more than a pleading\\nexercise,” and to allow Plaintiff’s argument to succeed would “reduce the [AIA] to dust in the\\ncontext of challenges to regulatory taxes.” Fla. Bankers, 779 F.3d at 1071. A challenge to a\\nregulatory tax comes within the scope of the AIA, even if the plaintiff claims to be targeting the\\nregulatory aspect of the regulatory tax, because a challenge to the regulatory aspect of a\\nregulatory tax is necessarily also a challenge to the tax aspect of a regulatory tax. Id.\\nInvalidating the former would “necessarily” invalidate the latter. Id.\\n\\n 7In Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1, 8–9 (D.C. Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by NFIB, 567 U.S.\\nat 519, the D.C. Circuit noted that “[t]he harms appellants allege . . . exist as a result of the [ACA coverage]\\nmandate, not the penalty. . . . The individual mandate and the shared responsibility payment create different legal\\nobligations, for different categories of people, at different times.” But the D.C. Circuit’s more recent decision in\\nFlorida Bankers deemed that passage dicta. See 799 F.3d at 1072 n.3. Additionally, in Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d\\n654, 669 (7th Cir. 2013) and Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1127 (10th Cir. 2013), the courts\\nemphasized that the regulation at issue was a separate provision of the U.S. Code structured not as a predicate to the\\nimposition of a tax, but as a mandate enforceable by a variety of different mechanisms. That is not the case here.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n In sum, we hold that Plaintiff’s complaint seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Notice\\nis properly characterized as a “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of\\nany tax.” RYO, 696 F.3d at 471 (quoting 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)). Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is\\nwithin the purview of the AIA and the district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction\\nover it unless an exception applies.8\\n\\n 2. Whether this case falls into an exception to the AIA\\n\\n As noted above, the statutory and judicial exceptions to the AIA are few and\\ncircumscribed. See RYO, 696 F.3d at 471. Plaintiff asserts that this case falls into the judicial\\nexception created by the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984). In\\nthat case, South Carolina sought to enjoin a federal law that made interest on state-issued bearer\\nbonds taxable. Id. at 370. The Court allowed the merits of this challenge to be reached, even\\nthough it was within the purview of the AIA, because there was no “alternative legal avenue” by\\nwhich South Carolina could challenge the legality of the tax. Id. at 373. South Carolina did not\\nbear the tax itself—the bondholders did—and as a result South Carolina lacked the legal avenues\\navailable to the bondholders. Id. at 378. Without a newly crafted exception to the AIA, it had no\\nway to challenge the law’s constitutionality. Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n 8The dissent poses a hypothetical that it finds problematic in light of our holding: a reporting requirement\\ndiscriminatorily imposed upon a protected class and enforced by a penalty located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of\\nthe Tax Code. See Dis. Op. at 19. According to the dissent, the AIA could not bar a pre-emptive challenge to this\\nrequirement, “without warping the meaning of the statute beyond recognition,” at least in part because the purpose\\nof the suit plainly would be “to end discriminatory action by the Government,” not to enjoin the assessment or\\ncollection of a tax. Id.\\n What troubles the dissent about its hypothetical result is not entirely clear. To the extent that it is the clarity\\nof the purpose of such a suit that troubles the dissent, the same purpose would clearly underlie, for instance, a pre-\\nemptive challenge to tax investigations discriminatorily targeted at a protected class; yet that challenge would likely\\nbe barred by the AIA. See, e.g., Clavizzazo v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“[U]nder\\nthe [AIA], a plaintiff cannot even seek an injunction preventing the IRS from investigating tax liabilities in an\\nallegedly discriminatory or harassing fashion.”). To the extent that it is the constitutional nature of such a suit that\\ntroubles the dissent, “decisions of [the Supreme] Court make it unmistakably clear that the constitutional nature of a\\ntaxpayer’s claim . . . is of no consequence” under the AIA; “the taxpayer must succumb to an unconstitutional tax,\\nand seek recourse only after it has been unlawfully exacted.” United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Min. Co.,\\n553 U.S. 1, 10 (2008) (quotation omitted) (alteration in original). And to the extent that it is the treatment of certain\\npenalties as taxes for purposes of the AIA that troubles the dissent, we are bound by the Supreme Court’s allowance\\nof that practice, whatever its merits or shortcomings. See NFIB, 567 U.S. at 544 (“Congress can, of course, describe\\nsomething as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the [AIA].”).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\n However, as these facts suggest, and as we have explained, “this exception is very\\nnarrow.” RYO, 696 F.3d at 472. “Because of the strong policy animating the [AIA], and the\\nsympathetic, almost unique facts in South Carolina, courts have construed the South Carolina\\nexception very narrowly, undermining [the] plaintiff’s efforts to fit its own claims within the\\nconfines of this exception.” Id. (quotation omitted). As in RYO, this case “is distinguishable\\nfrom South Carolina in various ways.” Id.\\n\\n Most significantly, the Supreme Court contrasted the facts of South Carolina with cases\\nin which plaintiffs have “the alternative remedy of a suit for a refund.” 465 U.S. at 374–75;\\naccord RYO, 696 F.3d at 472. Plaintiff does not contest that it has this alterative remedy.\\nRather, Plaintiff challenges whether that remedy is sufficiently meaningful. Plaintiff contends\\nthat having to “break the law” by violating the Notice, and then sue for a refund, is “no remedy\\nat all.” (Brief for Appellant at 38–40.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention however, that is\\nexactly what the AIA is designed to require. The AIA “serves two related purposes,” Dickens v.\\nUnited States, 671 F.2d 969, 971 (6th Cir. 1982), “to permit the United States to assess and\\ncollect taxes alleged to be due without judicial intervention, and to require that the legal right to\\ndisputed sums be determined in a suit for refund.” Williams Packing, 370 U.S. 1 at 7. Thus, we\\nhold that Plaintiff’s complaint does not fall into the South Carolina exception to the AIA.\\n\\n CONCLUSION\\n\\n The broader legal context in which this case has been brought is not lost on this Court.\\nDefendants “do not have a great history of complying with APA procedures, having claimed for\\nseveral decades that their rules and regulations are exempt from those requirements.” Hickman\\n& Gerska, supra, at 1712–13. And despite the jurisdictional nature of this appeal, Plaintiff has\\nmade its thoughts on the merits abundantly clear, emphasizing that “Notice 2016-66’s Issuance\\nand Enforcement is an Obvious Violation of the APA.” (Reply Brief for Appellant at 4.) But\\nthat does not in and of itself give federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over suits\\nseeking to enjoin the assessment or collection of taxes. Absent further instruction from Congress\\nor the Supreme Court, such suits are barred by the AIA.\\n\\n For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n DISSENT\\n _________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2088,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4623281,"string":"4,623,281"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon Lamont SHANKLIN, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Damon Shanklin"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-24"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-5289"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Moore, Sutton, Murphy\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0101p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5289\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n DAMON LAMONT SHANKLIN, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.\\n No. 3:16-cr-00085-1—Thomas B. Russell, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: May 2, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 24, 2019\\n\\n Before: MOORE, SUTTON, MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Thomas W. Kidd, Jr., KIDD & URLING LLC, West Chester, Ohio, for Appellant.\\nErin McKenzie, UNITED STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.\\nON BRIEF: Thomas W. Kidd, Jr., KIDD & URLING LLC, West Chester, Ohio, for Appellant.\\nErin McKenzie, UNITED STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Damon Lamont Shanklin appeals his\\nconviction and sentence, following a jury trial, for being a felon in possession of a firearm in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Shanklin contends that (1) the district court\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 2\\n\\n\\nerred when it denied his motion to compel the government to disclose the identity of a\\nconfidential informant (“CI”); (2) the government failed to provide sufficient identification\\nevidence to sustain Shanklin’s conviction; and (3) the district court erred when it applied a\\nsentencing enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing a firearm or\\nammunition “in connection with another felony offense.” For the reasons stated below, we reject\\nthese arguments and AFFIRM Shanklin’s conviction and sentence.\\n\\n I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND\\n\\n On September 3, 2013, Louisville police began surveilling 2429 Elliott Avenue to\\ninvestigate a tip that Damon Shanklin was growing marijuana at the location. R. 116 (McKinney\\nTest. at 160, 194) (Page ID #791, 825); id. at 97 (Schardein Test.) (Page ID #728). The tip came\\nfrom a “reliable confident[i]al informant,” who informed Detective Kevin McKinney that within\\nthe last 48 hours, he/she had seen “numerous” marijuana plants inside the residence and that\\nhe/she believed that Shanklin was the “only occupant of the home.” R. 29-2 (Search Warrant\\nAffidavit at 2) (Page ID #79). After beginning surveillance on September 3, 2013, McKinney\\nand other officers observed Shanklin exit 2429 Elliott Avenue and enter a vehicle. R. 116\\n(Schardein Test. at 97) (Page ID #728); id. at 161–62 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #792–93).\\nMcKinney began to follow Shanklin, who drove a short distance and eventually pulled into the\\nparking lot of a convenience store. Id. at 163–64 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #794–95).\\nMcKinney and other officers subsequently approached Shanklin, confirmed his identity, and had\\na K-9 sniff the outside of Shanklin’s car. Id. at 164–65 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #795–96).\\nThe dog alerted to the trunk area, and a search of the car revealed a small amount of marijuana\\nleaves in the trunk. Id.\\n\\n During this investigation, McKinney notified other officers to continue to surveil the\\nresidence to ensure that no one exited or entered 2429 Elliott Avenue; no one did. Id. at 130–31\\n(Evans Test.) (Page ID #761–62). One of the officers testified that when he approached the\\nhouse, he observed marijuana plants in the backyard and noticed a “strong smell of marijuana\\ncoming from the house.” Id. at 131 (Evans Test.) (Page ID #762). Based on the CI’s statements,\\nas well as the smell of marijuana from the residence, McKinney applied for and received a\\nsearch warrant for 2429 Elliott Avenue. See R. 29-2 (Search Warrant) (Page ID #78–82).\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 3\\n\\n\\n Officers subsequently executed the search warrant, using a key that Shanklin had given\\nthem to enter the residence. R. 116 (Schardein Test. at 116) (Page ID #747); id. at 169\\n(McKinney Test.) (Page ID #800). The house was small and had four rooms, including one front\\nbedroom. Id. at 124 (Schardein Test.) (Page ID #755); id. at 137 (Evans Test.) (Page ID #768).\\nDuring the search, officers located 51 bud-producing marijuana plants. Id. at 185 (McKinney\\nTest.) (Page ID #816); R. 132-3 (Seized Property Log) (Page ID #1114). Additionally, officers\\nfound a glass marijuana pipe in the kitchen sink, a digital scale in the living room, various letters\\naddressed to Shanklin at 2429 Elliott Avenue, and personal items associated with Shanklin,\\nincluding car registrations, photographs of Shanklin, a medication prescription from 2008, and a\\nmedical discharge notice from July 2013. R. 132-3 (Seized Property Log) (Page ID #1114); R.\\n132-1 (Gov’t Exs. at 9–10, 12–13, 57–61, 64–69, 72–74) (Page ID #993–94, 996–97, 1041–45,\\n1048–53, 1056–58); R. 132-2 (Gov’t Exs. at 16–20) (Page ID #1084–88). There were also a\\nsmall number of bills addressed to Shanklin’s mother, as well as other individuals, dated from\\n2010 to 2013. R. 132-1 (Gov’t Exs. at 66, 78) (Page ID #1050, 1062); R. 132-2 (Gov’t Exs. at\\n10–11, 21–23) (Page ID #1078–79, 1089–91).\\n\\n Finally, in the “front bedroom,” officers located a loaded 9-millimeter Glock pistol on the\\nnightstand, a digital scale, and a magazine focusing on growing marijuana. R. 132-3 (Seized\\nProperty Log) (Page ID #1114); R. 116 (Schardein Test. at 120–21) (Page ID #751–52); id. at\\n141 (Reccius Test.) (Page ID #772); id. at 174, 188 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #805, 819)\\n(testifying that the gun was located on the nightstand and that, based on a later photograph of the\\ngun and ammunition, a round of ammunition was found in the chamber of the gun); see also R.\\n88 (ATF Agent Test. at 3, 9) (Page ID #405, 411) (testifying about the ammunition). While\\nSchardein believes he took a photograph of the gun, all parties agree that the photograph could\\nnot be located and was not entered into evidence. R. 116 (Schardein Test. at 120–21) (Page ID\\n#751–52); Appellant Br. at 5.\\n\\n Shanklin was subsequently indicted by the Jefferson County Circuit Court for cultivating\\nfive or more plants of marijuana, in violation of Kentucky Revised Statute § 218A.1423, as well\\nas for possessing a handgun as a convicted felon. Although the firearm charge was later severed,\\nstate prosecutors amended the marijuana cultivation charge to include a sentence enhancement\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 4\\n\\n\\nbased upon Shanklin’s firearm possession. See Appellant Br. at 5–6; Appellee Br. at 6 n.2.\\nShanklin was then convicted of the marijuana cultivation charge in state court; the jury found\\nShanklin not guilty of the firearm enhancement. Appellant Br. at 6; see also R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g\\nTr. at 15–16) (Page ID #465–66).\\n\\n On July 20, 2016, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Shanklin on a\\nsingle count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)\\nand 924(a)(2). R. 1 (Indictment at 1) (Page ID #1). Prior to trial, Shanklin’s defense counsel\\nfiled a motion to compel the government to disclose the identity of the confidential informant\\nwho spoke to McKinney in September 2013. R. 29 (Page ID #71). Shanklin asserted that the\\nCI’s identity was necessary to establish his defense because “[i]t is quite possible the CI placed\\nor left items with[in] the residence that are now being attributed to Shanklin.” Id. at 3 (Page ID\\n#73). The district court denied the motion, concluding that Shanklin had not provided any\\nevidence indicating how the CI’s identity would assist him in preparing his defense. R. 44\\n(Order at 5–9) (Page ID #121–25).\\n\\n The case proceeded to trial. Following the government’s presentation of evidence,\\nShanklin moved for a judgment of acquittal, asserting, among other things, that the government\\nhad not presented any evidence that the individual at the defense table was Damon Shanklin. R.\\n117 (Trial Tr. at 4–6) (Page ID #861–63). The district court denied Shanklin’s motion, noting\\nthat, “I think he [Shanklin] was identified several times.” Id. at 6 (Page ID #863). The jury\\nsubsequently convicted Shanklin on Count I of the indictment. R. 62 (Jury Verdict) (Page ID\\n#231).\\n\\n Prior to sentencing, the United States Probation and Parole Office prepared a presentence\\ninvestigation report (“PSR”). R. 83. The PSR listed Shanklin’s base offense level at 20 and\\nincluded a four-level enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), which applies when a\\ndefendant “use[s] or possesse[s] any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony\\noffense.” Id. ¶¶ 15–16 (Page ID #367). Shanklin objected to the enhancement, asserting that\\n“there was insufficient evidence that the firearm at issue was used or possessed ‘in connection\\nwith another felony offense.’” R. 83-1 (PSR Addendum at 4) (Page ID #385). At his sentencing\\nhearing, Shanklin again raised an objection to the four-level enhancement. R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 5\\n\\n\\nTr. at 19–20) (Page ID #469–70). Relying upon the “fortress theory,” the district court\\nconcluded that the enhancement applied, noting that “[t]he fact that the police found\\napproximately 51 marijuana plants, digital scales, and literature about marijuana growing in\\nShanklin’s house and a loaded gun in the only bedroom suggests that the gun was in close\\nproximity to Mr. Shanklin’s marijuana cultivation, trafficking activity.” Id. at 31–32 (Page ID\\n#481–82). The district court subsequently adopted the PSR’s recommendations, which\\nestablished Shanklin’s total offense level as 24, criminal history category as III, and the advisory\\nguideline range as 63 to 78 months. Id. at 53 (Page ID #503); see also R. 83 (PSR ¶ 66) (Page\\nID #379). After Shanklin’s allocution, the district court reviewed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)\\nsentencing factors and sentenced Shanklin to 63 months in prison with two years of supervised\\nrelease. R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 45–47, 50–52) (Page ID #495–97, 500–02); R. 92 (Judgment\\nat 3) (Page ID #424). Shanklin filed this timely appeal, R. 94 (Notice of Appeal) (Page ID\\n#433), over which we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.\\n\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n\\nA. Disclosure of the Confidential Informant’s Identity\\n\\n In his first argument, Shanklin contends that the district court erred when it refused to\\ncompel the government to identify the CI who had informed McKinney that the CI had seen\\nmarijuana in the house occupied by Shanklin. Shanklin points to the affidavit supporting the\\nsearch warrant for 2429 Elliott Avenue, which explained in relevant part:\\n\\n Detectives received information from a reliable confident[i]al informant that has\\n been proven reliable by giving information in the past on numerous occasions that\\n has lead to the arrest and seizure of narcotics. The confident[i]al informant\\n wishes to remain anonymous for his/her safety. Within the last 48 hours of this\\n affidavit being drafted the confident[i]al informant observed numerous marijuana\\n plants inside 2429 Elliott Ave. Confiden[ti]al reliable informant advises Damon\\n L Shanklin is the only occupant of the home.\\n\\nR. 29-2 (Search Warrant Affidavit at 2) (Page ID #79). In his motion before the district court,\\nShanklin argued that because “[t]he affidavit suggests that the CI was inside the residence shortly\\nbefore the issuance of the search warrant[, i]t is quite possible the CI placed or left items with in\\n[sic] the residence that are now being attributed to Shanklin.” R. 29 (Mot. to Compel Disclosure\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 6\\n\\n\\nat 3) (Page ID #73). Thus, Shanklin asserted that the CI’s identity “is material to the defendant’s\\ndefense in this case” and must be disclosed. Id. The district court denied Shanklin’s motion,\\nconcluding that Shanklin “failed to provide evidence that the informant’s identity would help\\nhim prepare his defense.” R. 44 (Order at 8) (Page ID #124).\\n\\n On appeal, Shanklin raises the same arguments, asserting that the district court’s refusal\\nto order disclosure rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. See Appellant Br. at 3. Shanklin also\\ncontends that because the search warrant affidavit relied entirely on the CI’s statements and\\n“[t]here would be good reason to believe that the [CI] was motivated by monetary compensation\\nor a particularly favorable plea deal,” Shanklin should have been able to cross-examine the CI in\\norder to impeach his/her credibility. See Appellant Br. at 14–18.\\n\\n 1. Standard of Review & Applicable Law\\n\\n “The question of disclosure is generally left to the district court’s discretion”; we thus\\nreview a district court’s denial of a motion to compel disclosure for abuse of discretion. United\\nStates v. Doxey, 833 F.3d 692, 706–07 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2204 (2017).\\n“A district court abuses its discretion when it applies the incorrect legal standard, misapplies the\\ncorrect legal standard, or relies upon clearly erroneous findings of fact.” United States v. Pugh,\\n405 F.3d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n\\n Shanklin’s motion to compel is governed by Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53\\n(1957), in which the Supreme Court recognized the government’s privilege to withhold the\\nidentities of confidential informants from criminal defendants. The privilege is meant to\\nencourage citizens to inform authorities about the commission of crimes by ensuring their\\nanonymity. United States v. Barnett, 418 F.2d 309, 311 (6th Cir. 1969); see also United States v.\\nLloyd, 400 F.2d 414, 415 (6th Cir. 1968) (explaining that anonymity is particularly important\\nwhen investigating drug transactions, since the CI and the defendant usually engage in a\\nconsensual interaction and the government is thus more reliant on the CI’s testimony).\\nAdditionally, when the CI is considered “reliable” and has provided authorities with necessary\\ninformation in the past, the police have an important interest in maintaining the CI’s anonymity\\nso that the government may utilize the CI’s knowledge and connections in the future.\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 7\\n\\n\\n Importantly, however, this privilege is limited by “the fundamental requirements of\\nfairness” and necessitates a balance between “the public interest in protecting the flow of\\ninformation against the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 60, 62.\\nThus, when “disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is\\nrelevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a\\ncause, the privilege must give way.” Id. at 60–61. Courts determining whether to order\\ndisclosure must consider “the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the\\ncrime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and\\nother relevant factors.” Doxey, 833 F.3d at 706 (quoting Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62). This court\\nhas noted that “[w]e usually deny disclosure when the informer was not a participant in the\\nunderlying alleged crime, and instead was a mere tipster or introducer.” Id. at 707 (internal\\nquotation marks omitted). Moreover, because “[a] defendant must provide some evidence that\\ndisclosure of the informant’s identity would assist in his defense before disclosure will be\\nwarranted,” United States v. Ray, 803 F.3d 244, 274 (6th Cir. 2015), “[m]ere conjecture or\\nsupposition about the possible relevancy of the informant’s testimony is insufficient to warrant\\ndisclosure,” United States v. Sharp, 778 F.2d 1182, 1187 (6th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation\\nmarks omitted). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating “how disclosure of the\\ninformant would substantively assist in his defense.” United States v. Sierra-Villegas, 774 F.3d\\n1093, 1099 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Moore, 954 F.2d 379, 381 (6th Cir. 1992)).\\n\\n 2. Impeachment of the Confidential Informant\\n\\n Shanklin first argues that disclosure was required so that he could impeach the CI. See\\ngenerally Appellant Br. at 14–19. To the extent Shanklin’s argument is made pursuant to either\\nthe Confrontation Clause or more general notions of fairness 1, we have previously held that\\nwhen “[t]he CI did not testify and none of the CI’s statements were offered for their truth at\\ntrial,” a defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him has not been violated. Doxey, 833\\nF.3d at 708; see also United States v. Sales, 247 F. App’x 730, 735 (6th Cir. 2007) (concluding\\n\\n 1Although Shanklin generally asserts that he should be permitted to probe the credibility of the CI,\\nShanklin mentions the Confrontation Clause specifically in only the Statement of the Issues in his appellate brief.\\nSee Appellant Br. at 3. Instead, Shanklin’s brief primarily asserts that disclosure was required for fairness reasons\\nonly.\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 8\\n\\n\\nthat, in the context of a defendant’s request for disclosure, the defendant’s “confrontation right\\nwas not implicated because the testimony was provided merely by way of background” (quoting\\nUnited States v. Cromer, 389 F.3d 662, 676 (6th Cir. 2004))). In such a case, we have reasoned\\nthat because the statements are not introduced for their truth, the CI’s reliability “would not make\\nany fact of consequence more or less likely.” Doxey, 833 F.3d at 708 (internal quotation marks\\nomitted).\\n\\n Shanklin has not identified any statements attributed to the CI that were introduced for\\ntheir truth by the government. Rather, a fair reading of the trial transcript indicates that\\ntestimony regarding the CI’s affidavit primarily served as a background explanation for the\\nofficers’ search of 2429 Elliott Avenue. See R. 116 (McKinney Test. at 160–61) (Page ID #791–\\n92) (stating that after receiving information from the “reliable confidential informant,”\\nMcKinney did some investigation into the house and set up surveillance of the residence); id. at\\n97 (Schardein Test.) (Page ID #728) (explaining that McKinney informed other officers that “he\\nhad information of a potential grow in the area of Elliott” and they subsequently set up\\nsurveillance of the home). To the extent that McKinney testified regarding the particular\\nstatements included in the affidavit, these statements were either in response to defense counsel’s\\ncross-examination or truthfully described the contents of the search warrant affidavit, which had\\nbeen introduced as Defense Exhibit 2. See id. at 199–200 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #830–31)\\n(explaining on cross-examination that the CI had been in the house 48 hours before Shanklin’s\\narrest); id. at 218–20 (Page ID #849–51) (stating on re-direct that he had not ordered the CI to\\nplant the gun and agreeing with the prosecutor that “[t]here’s nothing in [the affidavit] about the\\ninformant telling you, hey, he’s got a gun”); id. at 214 (Page ID #845) (introducing the search\\nwarrant as Defense Exhibit 2); R. 119 (Page ID #924) (listing the affidavit as Defense Exhibit 2).\\n\\n Additionally, and as explained in more detail below, because the CI’s statements did not\\nrelate to any evidence supporting the charged crime (possession of a firearm), the CI’s credibility\\nwas not a sufficient reason to order disclosure. See Sierra-Villegas, 774 F.3d at 1099–1100\\n(concluding that because the CI’s statements were not introduced for their truth and the\\ndefendant was being convicted for items found pursuant to a search warrant based upon the CI’s\\ntip, the fact that “the original source of investigators’ suspicions might have been untrustworthy\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 9\\n\\n\\nhas no bearing on the reliability of the evidence the investigators subsequently found”). Finally,\\nalthough it is not dispositive, our review of the record does show that Shanklin’s defense\\nattorney was able to introduce the theory that Shanklin had been framed, either by the police or\\nthe CI. See Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62 (concluding that one of the factors to consider for disclosure\\nis “the possible significance of the informer’s testimony”). For instance, on cross-examination,\\nMcKinney explained that although the affidavit stated that the CI had been in the house within\\n48 hours of the search of 2429 Elliott Avenue, McKinney could not confirm whether the CI was\\nalone in the house, what the CI had done while in the residence, and whether the CI had brought\\nanything into the house. R. 116 (McKinney Test. at 199–200) (Page ID #830–31). Additionally,\\ndefense counsel was able to question McKinney about whether the CI may have had an ulterior\\nmotive in reporting Shanklin or a personal grudge against Shanklin. Id. at 220 (McKinney Test.)\\n(Page ID #851). Defense counsel also called into question the credibility of narcotics informers\\ngenerally, asking McKinney whether CIs were sometimes “drug addicts” who often exchanged\\ninformation to “get charges eliminated.” Id. at 197–98 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #828–29).\\n\\n 3. Support of Shanklin’s Defense\\n\\n In addition to his credibility argument, Shanklin’s primary claim on appeal relies on the\\nviability of his claimed defense, namely that the gun was not his and the CI planted the firearm at\\n2429 Elliott Avenue in an effort to frame him. Appellant Br. at 18. Although this is a closer\\nissue than Shanklin’s credibility argument, we do not believe that the district court abused its\\ndiscretion in denying Shanklin’s motion to disclose in light of the specific facts of this case and\\nour deferential standard of review.\\n\\n As noted above, a defendant must point to some evidence supporting his motion for\\ndisclosure; “[m]ere conjecture” that the CI’s identity will assist in the defendant’s defense is\\ninsufficient. Sharp, 778 F.2d at 1187 (internal quotation marks omitted). Admittedly, our\\nprecedent has not specified what kind of evidence (and what amount) a defendant is required to\\nproduce before he successfully requests disclosure. Indeed, when a defendant’s primary\\nargument in favor of disclosure rests on the likelihood that the CI possesses necessary\\ninformation for the defendant’s sole defense, it is entirely possible that the majority of the\\ndefendant’s disclosure motion will rely on “speculation” about the CI’s testimony. On the other\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 10\\n\\n\\nhand, were we to permit defendants to require disclosure based on otherwise unsupported\\nhypotheses that have no basis in the facts of the case, we would severely limit the government’s\\nability to maintain the anonymity of reliable, and oftentimes necessary, CIs. In the context of\\nthis case, for instance, while a defendant is surely permitted to argue that a third party, including\\nthe CI, may have planted an item in the defendant’s residence, without some evidence creating a\\nplausible inference that the CI could have planted that evidence, the government should not be\\nrequired to disclose the CI’s identity. See Sierra-Villegas, 774 F.3d at 1100 (rejecting the\\ndefendant’s argument in favor of disclosure when “[a]lthough it is not impossible, it is\\nimplausible that the CI framed [the defendant] . . . or would testify to this effect”); Sharp, 778\\nF.2d at 1187 (concluding that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered disclosure\\nbased only on defense counsel’s unsworn representations and remanding for the district court to\\nconduct an in camera hearing to determine the relevancy of the CI’s testimony).\\n\\n In Shanklin’s case, we conclude that Shanklin has not made this required evidentiary\\nshowing. First, although Shanklin contends that at least seven individuals may have “received\\nmail at” 2429 Elliott Avenue, R. 42 (Def.’s Reply Br. at 1–2) (Page ID #109–10), Shanklin did\\nnot subpoena any of those individuals to question them regarding their relationship to the\\nresidence, whether they were confidential informants, or whether they had seen a weapon in the\\nresidence recently. This despite the fact that the evidence in the record identified many of these\\nindividuals by name. See, e.g., R. 132-1 (Gov’t Exs. at 66, 78) (Page ID #1050, 1062); R. 132-2\\n(Gov’t Exs. at 10–11, 21–23) (Page ID #1078–79, 1089–91). Similarly, Shanklin could have\\nprovided affidavits or testimony from friends or family, including his mother, regarding their\\nfamiliarity with the residence and whether they had ever seen Shanklin possess a weapon in or\\naround 2429 Elliott Avenue. Such evidence could have suggested that (1) Shanklin did not own\\na gun and (2) any weapon found in the residence had to have been left by another person. While\\nwe need not decide whether, standing alone, such evidence would have pushed the balance in\\nfavor of requiring disclosure, without providing even this modicum of evidence, Shanklin has\\nnot shown that the CI’s testimony would plausibly support his claim that he had been framed.2\\n\\n\\n\\n 2Although not dispositive, the plausibility of Shanklin’s argument is further diminished when we consider\\nthe fact that officers observed Shanklin leaving the residence before arresting him and confirmed that no one else\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 11\\n\\n\\n In addition to Shanklin’s lack of evidence, the CI in this case is more aptly described as a\\n“tipster,” rather than an active participant. See Doxey, 833 F.3d at 707 (“We usually deny\\ndisclosure when the informer was not a participant in the underlying alleged crime, and instead\\nwas a mere tipster or introducer.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). When the CI informed\\nMcKinney about Shanklin’s criminal activity, the CI stated only that he had seen marijuana\\nplants in 2429 Elliott Avenue and did not suggest that there was a firearm in the residence or that\\nShanklin possessed one. R. 29-2 (Search Warrant Affidavit at 2) (Page ID #79). After\\nsurveilling the house and confirming that there was a “strong odor of marijuana” from the home,\\nthe officers secured a search warrant to search for marijuana and related paraphernalia. Id. at\\n78–82. In addition to confirming the presence of numerous marijuana plants, as the CI had\\nclaimed, the officers also located the firearm at issue here. R. 132-3 (Seized Property Log) (Page\\nID #1114). We have previously held that when a CI does not participate in the underlying crime\\nand instead merely puts a fruitful search into motion, the government is not required to disclose\\nthe CI’s identity. United States v. Beals, 698 F.3d 248, 270 (6th Cir. 2012) (denying disclosure\\nwhen “the only role the confidential informant played was supplying reliable information to\\npolice that led to a fruitful search”); United States v. McManus, 560 F.2d 747, 751 (6th Cir.\\n1977) (concluding that no disclosure was required when “[t]he evidence upon which the\\nappellant was convicted was secured by government agents personally and was in no way\\ndependent on any informer” (internal quotation marks omitted)).\\n\\n Admittedly, this case is somewhat distinguishable from Beals and similar cases; although\\nthe CI did not provide any information suggesting that he/she had seen a weapon in the\\nresidence, Shanklin’s primary defense was that the CI was actively involved in the underlying\\ncrime of ensuring that Shanklin possessed the weapon. Cf. Beals, 698 F.3d at 270 (noting that\\ndisclosure was unnecessary because although the CI had told officers about various drugs and\\nweapons in the defendant’s garage, the CI was not involved in providing the defendant with any\\n\\n\\nentered the house. See R. 116 (Schardein Test. at 97–98) (Page ID #728–29) (explaining that they observed\\nShanklin exit the residence); id. at 131 (Evans Test.) (Page ID #762) (testifying that no one entered or exited the\\nresidence in the hour between when Shanklin left and when the search was conducted). Considering the small size\\nof the residence, the fact that Shanklin appeared to be residing in the house, and the visibility of the weapon on the\\nbedside table, Shanklin seemingly would have seen the weapon between the time the CI was in his house and the\\ntime Shanklin was arrested.\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 12\\n\\n\\nof the contraband). However, as noted above, Shanklin failed to provide any evidence\\nsupporting this claim. Furthermore, because the CI made no mention of the weapon in his\\nstatement to McKinney, there was no suggestion that the CI had any particular knowledge about\\nthe location of the weapon in the residence at 2429 Elliott Avenue or would have had the\\nopportunity to plant the firearm. Given the lack of evidence supporting Shanklin’s defense, as\\nwell as the limited statement by the CI concerning marijuana only, we conclude that the district\\ncourt did not abuse its discretion when it denied Shanklin’s motion for disclosure of the CI’s\\nidentity.\\n\\nB. Identification of Shanklin\\n\\n Shanklin next argues that the government failed to present sufficient evidence supporting\\nhis conviction and, therefore, the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal under\\nFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 29. Specifically, Shanklin contends that the\\ngovernment did not present any evidence showing that the individual in the courtroom, as well as\\nthe individual who was the focus of the witnesses’ testimony, was, in fact, Shanklin. Appellant\\nBr. at 26 (“[T]he Government failed to present any evidence that the man sitting accused in the\\ncourtroom was the same man that was arrested the day in question. No witness even attempted\\nto provide an in-court identification of the defendant.”). The government responds that because\\nsufficient circumstantial evidence supported a finding that Shanklin was the correct, named\\ndefendant, the district court correctly denied Shanklin’s Rule 29 motion. Appellee Br. at 15–18.\\n\\n “[T]his Court reviews de novo a district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion for judgment\\nof acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence.” United States v. Clay, 667 F.3d 689,\\n693 (6th Cir. 2012). “The Court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the\\ngovernment, and then determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential\\nelements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (emphasis added). In so doing, the court\\n“must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court, regardless of whether that evidence\\nwas admitted erroneously.” McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 131 (2010) (internal quotation\\nmarks omitted). The defendant thus “bears a very heavy burden.” Clay, 667 F.3d at 693\\n(quoting United States v. Davis, 397 F.3d 340, 344 (6th Cir. 2005)).\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 13\\n\\n\\n Shanklin has failed to meet this burden. “It is well-settled that an essential element that\\nthe government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the identification of a defendant as the\\nperson who perpetrated the crime charged.” United States v. Boyd, 447 F. App’x 684, 690 (6th\\nCir. 2011) (citing United States v. Green, 757 F.2d 116, 119 (7th Cir. 1985)). However, in order\\nto make that showing, the government need not present direct, in-court identifications of the\\ndefendant. Id. Rather, circumstantial evidence may support the identification of the defendant.\\nClay, 667 F.3d at 701–02. Such evidence may include the fact that the defendant has the same\\nname as the person charged in the indictment, the defendant’s willingness to enter into\\nevidentiary stipulations, defense counsel’s identification of the defendant at trial, and witnesses’\\nfailure to deny the defendant’s identity. Boyd, 447 F. App’x at 690 (collecting cases).\\n\\n Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude that\\nthere was sufficient circumstantial evidence to identify Shanklin as the perpetrator of the charged\\ncrime. First, Shanklin and the named defendant in the indictment shared the same name, a fact\\nthat was reinforced when the district court introduced the case to the jury. See R. 1 (Indictment\\nat 1) (Page ID #1); R. 116 (Trial Tr. at 9–10) (Page ID #640–41) (calling the case as “United\\nStates of American v. Damon Shanklin” and stating that “[i]n this case, the defendant,\\nMr. Shanklin, is charged with [the asserted crime]. Those are the charges against the defendant.\\nThe defendant has pled not guilty to those charges”). Second, defense counsel referred to\\nShanklin by name at least twice before the jury. During voir dire, defense counsel introduced\\nhimself to the jury and explained: “It’s my honor to represent Damon Shanklin, who is present\\nstanding next to my right.” R. 116 (Trial Tr. at 12) (Page ID #643). Next, during closing\\nargument, defense counsel stated: “[O]n behalf of my client, Mr. Shanklin, I’d like to thank you\\nfor your attention in this case.” R. 117 (Trial Tr. at 17) (Page ID #874). Similarly, defense\\ncounsel never objected when Schardein referred to Mr. Shanklin as “the defendant,” see R. 116\\n(Schardein Test. at 103) (Page ID #734) (explaining that he took a photograph of the house and\\n“took a photograph of the defendant and then photographed as items were called out”), and\\nwitnesses testified regarding their familiarity with Shanklin but did not suggest that the wrong\\ndefendant was on trial, see e.g., id. (Schardein Test. at 97) (Page ID #728); id. at 163–65\\n(McKinney Test.) (Page ID #794–96). Additionally, defense counsel did not raise Shanklin’s\\nidentity as an issue during trial or object when the government introduced photographs that\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 14\\n\\n\\nMcKinney confirmed depicted “Damon Shanklin.” Id. at 180 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #811);\\nsee also R. 132-1 (Gov’t Exs. at 64–65) (Page ID #1048–49); id. at 68–69 (Page ID #1052–53).\\nFinally, both parties stipulated that “[t]he defendant, Damon Shanklin, and the United States of\\nAmerica stipulate and agree that prior to September 3rd, 2013, Damon Shanklin had been\\nconvicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”\\nR. 117 (Trial Tr. at 3) (Page ID #860). Read in the light most favorable to the government and\\nwith all reasonable inferences drawn in support of the jury’s verdict, there was sufficient\\nevidence to support the jury’s identification of Shanklin as the named defendant in the courtroom\\nand in the indictment. Consequently, the district court did not err in denying Shanklin’s Rule 29\\nmotion for lack of identification evidence.\\n\\nC. Application of USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)\\n\\n In his final argument, Shanklin asserts that the district court erred when it applied the\\nfour-level sentencing enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing a\\nfirearm in connection with another felony offense, namely the cultivation of marijuana. See R.\\n83 (PSR ¶ 16) (Page ID #367); R. 83-1 (PSR Addendum at 1–2) (Page ID #382–83).\\nSpecifically, Shanklin contends that the government failed to show the necessary nexus between\\nhis possession of a firearm and “another felony offense,” thus rendering his sentence\\nprocedurally unreasonable. Appellant Br. at 27–30. The government responds that under the\\ntext of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) and its application notes, supported by the “fortress theory,” there was\\nsufficient evidence showing that Shanklin’s possession of the gun facilitated the felony offense\\nof marijuana cultivation. Appellee Br. at 20–27.\\n\\n 1. Standard of Review & Applicable Law\\n\\n “Our review of procedural reasonableness includes determining whether the district court\\nproperly calculated a defendant’s Guidelines range.” United States v. Seymour, 739 F.3d 923,\\n929 (6th Cir. 2014). Although we generally review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo\\nwhen examining the district court’s guideline calculation, “[i]n the specific context of the\\n§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) firearm enhancement, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings for clear\\nerror and accord due deference to the district court’s determination that the firearm was used or\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 15\\n\\n\\npossessed in connection with the other felony, thus warranting the application of the . . .\\nenhancement.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Taylor, 648\\nF.3d 417, 432 (6th Cir. 2011)). This standard recognizes that when a defendant “challenges the\\ndistrict court’s determination that the firearm was used or possessed ‘in connection with’ the\\n[other felony offense]––i.e., that there was a nexus between the firearm and the felony––,” that\\ninquiry is necessarily “fact-specific” and thus better examined by the district court. Taylor, 648\\nF.3d at 431 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Ennenga, 263 F.3d 499,\\n502 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001), and explaining that the\\nfact-specific inquiry requires a more deferential standard of review); Buford, 532 U.S. at 64–66\\n(holding that appellate courts must review deferentially a district court’s conclusion that past\\nconvictions are “related” under the sentencing guidelines because it is largely a fact-intensive\\ninquiry that district courts are in a better position to examine). As always, “[t]he government\\nbears the burden of establishing the factors supporting this enhancement by a preponderance of\\nthe evidence.” Seymour, 739 F.3d at 929.\\n\\n Pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), a defendant’s offense level is increased by four levels if,\\namong other things, the defendant “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection\\nwith another felony offense.” The application note further explains that “another felony offense”\\nis “any federal, state, or local offense, other than the explosive or firearms possession or\\ntrafficking offense, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, regardless of\\nwhether a criminal charge was brought, or a conviction obtained.” Id. cmt. 14(C). Finally, per\\nthe application note, subsection (b)(6)(B) applies “if the firearm or ammunition facilitated, or\\nhad the potential of facilitating, another felony offense.” Id. cmt. 14(A).\\n\\n In the current case, the district court concluded that, pursuant to the “fortress theory,” the\\nfour-level enhancement properly applied to Shanklin. R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 32) (Page ID\\n#482). The fortress theory permits the application of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) “if it reasonably appears\\nthat the firearms found on the premises controlled or owned by a defendant and in his actual or\\nconstructive possession are to be used to protect the drugs or otherwise facilitate a drug\\ntransaction.” United States v. Angel, 576 F.3d 318, 321 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks\\nomitted). A narrow version of the fortress theory has been recognized in application note 14(B),\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 16\\n\\n\\nwhich explains that in the case of drug trafficking, the enhancement applies if the firearm was\\n“found in close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug paraphernalia.”\\nSeymour, 739 F.3d at 930 (quoting § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), cmt. 14(B)); United States v. Shields,\\n664 F.3d 1040, 1045 (6th Cir. 2011) (explaining that when the “other offense” is drug\\ntrafficking, close proximity between the firearm and the drug materials is sufficient to apply the\\nenhancement). In the case of a drug-trafficking offense, the enhancement “is warranted\\nbecause the presence of the firearm has the potential of facilitating another felony offense.”\\nUSSG § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(B).\\n\\n If the other felony offense does not implicate drug trafficking––for instance, if the\\ndefendant merely possessed a controlled substance––“the enhancement applies only if the\\ngovernment can establish that the firearm actually or potentially facilitated that offense.”\\nShields, 664 F.3d at 1045 (internal quotation marks omitted). “To allow otherwise would render\\nthe distinction in the Guidelines commentary between drug trafficking and other felonies\\nmeaningless.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In order to show that the firearm\\n“facilitated” the other felony offense under the fortress theory, reviewing courts consider the\\nproximity of the gun to the drugs, whether the defendant had an innocent explanation for the\\nweapon (such as personal protection), the type of firearm, and whether the firearm was loaded.\\nTaylor, 648 F.3d at 432–33. Additionally, courts examine the accessibility of the gun, Angel,\\n576 F.3d at 321, as well as the amount of drugs in proximity to the firearm, Seymour, 739 F.3d at\\n930–31. Ultimately, “§ 2K2.1 applies if the firearm had some emboldening role in a defendant’s\\nfelonious conduct.” Angel, 576 F.3d at 321 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration\\nincorporated).\\n\\n 2. Analysis\\n\\n The district court concluded that, under the fortress theory, Shanklin’s possession of the\\nfirearm was in furtherance of the other felony offense of “marijuana cultivation, trafficking\\nactivity.” R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 32) (Page ID #482). The district court based this finding on\\nthe plain language of § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(B), the amount of marijuana found in Shanklin’s\\nresidence, the small size of the house, the location of the firearm (in the sole bedroom in the\\nhouse and next to a digital scale and marijuana-growing magazine), and the fact that the firearm\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 17\\n\\n\\nwas loaded. Id. at 31–33 (Page ID #481–83). Reviewing the district court’s conclusion with the\\nrequired “due deference,” we agree that the four-level enhancement applied to Shanklin’s\\nguideline calculation.\\n\\n First, although it is not immediately clear from the record, it appears that the other felony\\noffense identified by the district court, “marijuana cultivation, trafficking activity,” would fall\\nunder the narrow version of the fortress theory recognized in comment 14(B) of the application\\nnotes. See Seymour, 739 F.3d at 930 (quoting § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), cmt. 14(B) and explaining that\\nwhen the other felony offense was drug trafficking, the enhancement applied if the gun was in\\n“‘close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug paraphernalia’”). Shanklin\\nhas not contested the district court’s determination that the other felony offense was “marijuana\\ncultivation, trafficking activity”; rather, Shanklin contends only that there was an insufficient\\nnexus between the gun possession and the other felony offense. Appellant Br. at 29–31.\\nMoreover, in the related state case, Shanklin was convicted of cultivating five or more plants in\\nviolation of Kentucky Revised Statute § 218A.1423. Section 218A.1423 explains that “[a]\\nperson is guilty of marijuana cultivation when he knowingly and unlawfully . . . cultivates . . .\\nmarijuana with the intent to sell or transfer it.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 218A.1423(1) (emphasis\\nadded); see also Appellee Br. at 6 n.2. Finally, as the district court noted, the gun was located in\\na residence which also housed “51 marijuana plants, digital scales, and literature about marijuana\\ngrowing.” R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 32) (Page ID #482). The amount of marijuana involved, as\\nwell as the listed drug paraphernalia, strongly suggests that Shanklin was engaged in “drug\\ntrafficking” pursuant to § 2K2.1 cmt. 14(B). Such a conclusion weighs in favor of applying the\\nfour-level enhancement. See Shields, 664 F.3d at 1046 (noting that because drug trafficking\\nusually involves ensuring that a transaction takes place, “it is easier to see how a firearm\\nfacilitates drug trafficking transactions[ ] than it is to see how a firearm facilitates the mere\\npossession of controlled substances”).\\n\\n Even if the other felony offense did not constitute “drug trafficking,” the quantity of\\nmarijuana plants found in Shanklin’s residence––51 plants capable of producing $51,000 worth\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 18\\n\\n\\nof marijuana each harvesting cycle3––is consistent with similar cases where we have applied the\\nfortress theory. See Angel, 576 F.3d at 319–20, 322 (applying the enhancement when the\\ndefendant had three firearms on the same property as fourteen marijuana plants, which were\\nlocated on the perimeter of the property, and the weapons were discovered in the upstairs\\nbedroom, which also contained 81.2 grams of processed marijuana and drug paraphernalia);\\nEnnenga, 263 F.3d at 501, 503–04 (applying the enhancement when the defendant had\\n34 marijuana plants in a separate room, an enhanced security system for the entire apartment,\\nand ammunition in the same room as a small amount of marijuana); id. at 504 (“When one is in\\npossession of a large and valuable stash of drugs, the desire to protect these illicit substances can\\nbe compelling.”); see also Shields, 664 F.3d at 1046 (noting that the more relevant inquiry is the\\namount of drugs in the defendant’s possession, since “carrying objects of great value is naturally\\nfacilitated by the security of being armed––whether the objects are intended for sale or not”); cf.\\nSeymour, 739 F.3d at 930 (“[W]e have resorted to the fortress theory more sparingly in cases that\\ninvolve simple possession of smaller amounts of drugs.”).\\n\\n In response, Shanklin asserts that, because the firearm was located in the bedroom and\\nwas therefore separate from the growing operation in another area of the house, there was no\\n“nexus” between his possession of the weapon and the cultivation of marijuana. Appellant Br. at\\n29–31. Although the “proximity” of the weapon to drugs is often a key factor in applying the\\nenhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), see United States v. Jackson, 877 F.3d 231, 239–40 (6th\\nCir. 2017), we have never established a bright-line test. Indeed, in United States v. Taylor, we\\naffirmed the application of the enhancement when the defendant was trafficking drugs from his\\nhouse and the loaded firearms were found on the floor of a separate room in the house. Taylor,\\n648 F.3d at 432–33. Additionally, the firearm at issue in this case was loaded and located on a\\nnightstand in the sole bedroom of a very small house controlled only by Shanklin. Id. at 433\\n(noting that the type of firearm and whether it was loaded were factors in applying the fortress\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3The above amount is based on McKinney’s testimony at trial that (1) Shanklin’s residence contained\\n51 marijuana plants; (2) each plant produced five to eight ounces of marijuana per harvest cycle; and (3) one ounce\\nof marijuana sold for approximately $200 or $250. R. 116 (McKinney Test. at 183–85) (Page ID #814–16).\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 19\\n\\n\\ntheory); Angel, 576 F.3d at 321 (explaining that courts examine the accessibility of the gun).4\\nFinally, drug paraphernalia related to marijuana cultivation was located throughout the house,\\nfurther suggesting that Shanklin intended to fortify the entire residence in an effort to support\\nand protect his marijuana cultivation. See R. 132-3 (Seized Property Log) (Page ID #1114)\\n(explaining that three marijuana plants were found in the front living room closet and digital\\nscales were located on the living room coffee table); R. 116 (Reccius Test. at 141) (Page ID\\n#772) (stating that the bedroom was off of the living room). Shanklin’s case is thus\\ndistinguishable from Jackson, where the defendant kept his weapon “in a property down the\\nblock” from where the defendant conducted drug transactions, thereby destroying any “offensive\\nor defensive use to him.” Jackson, 877 F.3d at 240; cf. United States v. Heighton, 272 F. App’x\\n469, 472 (6th Cir. 2008) (applying the enhancement even though the firearms were found in a\\nseparate section of the house because “[t]he arsenal of unsecured, loaded weapons scattered\\nabout the premises, and the attendant video surveillance system, served to provide security for\\nthe manufacture and/or sale of narcotics on Heighton’s property”). Given the deferential nature\\nof our review, the number and value of the marijuana plants at 2429 Elliott Avenue, the small\\nsize of the residence, the location of the loaded weapon in the bedroom, and the presence of drug\\nparaphernalia throughout the house, a preponderance of the evidence supported application of\\nthe four-level enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). We thus affirm Shanklin’s sentence.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM Shanklin’s conviction and sentence.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4Contrary to Shanklin’s contention on appeal, a preponderance of the evidence supported the district\\ncourt’s conclusion that Shanklin was the sole resident of 2429 Elliott Avenue. See R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 32)\\n(Page ID #482). There were various letters and bills addressed to Shanklin at the address, Shanklin’s personal items\\nsuch as photographs, medical prescriptions, and car registrations were found in the house, Shanklin gave the officers\\na key to the house following his arrest, Shanklin was seen exiting the house an hour before the gun was recovered,\\nand there was only one bedroom in the small residence.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4400534/\", \"author_raw\": \"KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MOORE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SUTTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"MURPHY"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623281/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon Lamont SHANKLIN, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-24\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0101p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n > No. 18-5289\n v. │\n │\n │\n DAMON LAMONT SHANKLIN, │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.\n No. 3:16-cr-00085-1—Thomas B. Russell, District Judge.\n\n Argued: May 2, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 24, 2019\n\n Before: MOORE, SUTTON, MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Thomas W. Kidd, Jr., KIDD & URLING LLC, West Chester, Ohio, for Appellant.\nErin McKenzie, UNITED STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.\nON BRIEF: Thomas W. Kidd, Jr., KIDD & URLING LLC, West Chester, Ohio, for Appellant.\nErin McKenzie, UNITED STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Damon Lamont Shanklin appeals his\nconviction and sentence, following a jury trial, for being a felon in possession of a firearm in\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Shanklin contends that (1) the district court\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 2\n\n\nerred when it denied his motion to compel the government to disclose the identity of a\nconfidential informant (“CI”); (2) the government failed to provide sufficient identification\nevidence to sustain Shanklin’s conviction; and (3) the district court erred when it applied a\nsentencing enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing a firearm or\nammunition “in connection with another felony offense.” For the reasons stated below, we reject\nthese arguments and AFFIRM Shanklin’s conviction and sentence.\n\n I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND\n\n On September 3, 2013, Louisville police began surveilling 2429 Elliott Avenue to\ninvestigate a tip that Damon Shanklin was growing marijuana at the location. R. 116 (McKinney\nTest. at 160, 194) (Page ID #791, 825); id. at 97 (Schardein Test.) (Page ID #728). The tip came\nfrom a “reliable confident[i]al informant,” who informed Detective Kevin McKinney that within\nthe last 48 hours, he/she had seen “numerous” marijuana plants inside the residence and that\nhe/she believed that Shanklin was the “only occupant of the home.” R. 29-2 (Search Warrant\nAffidavit at 2) (Page ID #79). After beginning surveillance on September 3, 2013, McKinney\nand other officers observed Shanklin exit 2429 Elliott Avenue and enter a vehicle. R. 116\n(Schardein Test. at 97) (Page ID #728); id. at 161–62 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #792–93).\nMcKinney began to follow Shanklin, who drove a short distance and eventually pulled into the\nparking lot of a convenience store. Id. at 163–64 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #794–95).\nMcKinney and other officers subsequently approached Shanklin, confirmed his identity, and had\na K-9 sniff the outside of Shanklin’s car. Id. at 164–65 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #795–96).\nThe dog alerted to the trunk area, and a search of the car revealed a small amount of marijuana\nleaves in the trunk. Id.\n\n During this investigation, McKinney notified other officers to continue to surveil the\nresidence to ensure that no one exited or entered 2429 Elliott Avenue; no one did. Id. at 130–31\n(Evans Test.) (Page ID #761–62). One of the officers testified that when he approached the\nhouse, he observed marijuana plants in the backyard and noticed a “strong smell of marijuana\ncoming from the house.” Id. at 131 (Evans Test.) (Page ID #762). Based on the CI’s statements,\nas well as the smell of marijuana from the residence, McKinney applied for and received a\nsearch warrant for 2429 Elliott Avenue. See R. 29-2 (Search Warrant) (Page ID #78–82).\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 3\n\n\n Officers subsequently executed the search warrant, using a key that Shanklin had given\nthem to enter the residence. R. 116 (Schardein Test. at 116) (Page ID #747); id. at 169\n(McKinney Test.) (Page ID #800). The house was small and had four rooms, including one front\nbedroom. Id. at 124 (Schardein Test.) (Page ID #755); id. at 137 (Evans Test.) (Page ID #768).\nDuring the search, officers located 51 bud-producing marijuana plants. Id. at 185 (McKinney\nTest.) (Page ID #816); R. 132-3 (Seized Property Log) (Page ID #1114). Additionally, officers\nfound a glass marijuana pipe in the kitchen sink, a digital scale in the living room, various letters\naddressed to Shanklin at 2429 Elliott Avenue, and personal items associated with Shanklin,\nincluding car registrations, photographs of Shanklin, a medication prescription from 2008, and a\nmedical discharge notice from July 2013. R. 132-3 (Seized Property Log) (Page ID #1114); R.\n132-1 (Gov’t Exs. at 9–10, 12–13, 57–61, 64–69, 72–74) (Page ID #993–94, 996–97, 1041–45,\n1048–53, 1056–58); R. 132-2 (Gov’t Exs. at 16–20) (Page ID #1084–88). There were also a\nsmall number of bills addressed to Shanklin’s mother, as well as other individuals, dated from\n2010 to 2013. R. 132-1 (Gov’t Exs. at 66, 78) (Page ID #1050, 1062); R. 132-2 (Gov’t Exs. at\n10–11, 21–23) (Page ID #1078–79, 1089–91).\n\n Finally, in the “front bedroom,” officers located a loaded 9-millimeter Glock pistol on the\nnightstand, a digital scale, and a magazine focusing on growing marijuana. R. 132-3 (Seized\nProperty Log) (Page ID #1114); R. 116 (Schardein Test. at 120–21) (Page ID #751–52); id. at\n141 (Reccius Test.) (Page ID #772); id. at 174, 188 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #805, 819)\n(testifying that the gun was located on the nightstand and that, based on a later photograph of the\ngun and ammunition, a round of ammunition was found in the chamber of the gun); see also R.\n88 (ATF Agent Test. at 3, 9) (Page ID #405, 411) (testifying about the ammunition). While\nSchardein believes he took a photograph of the gun, all parties agree that the photograph could\nnot be located and was not entered into evidence. R. 116 (Schardein Test. at 120–21) (Page ID\n#751–52); Appellant Br. at 5.\n\n Shanklin was subsequently indicted by the Jefferson County Circuit Court for cultivating\nfive or more plants of marijuana, in violation of Kentucky Revised Statute § 218A.1423, as well\nas for possessing a handgun as a convicted felon. Although the firearm charge was later severed,\nstate prosecutors amended the marijuana cultivation charge to include a sentence enhancement\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 4\n\n\nbased upon Shanklin’s firearm possession. See Appellant Br. at 5–6; Appellee Br. at 6 n.2.\nShanklin was then convicted of the marijuana cultivation charge in state court; the jury found\nShanklin not guilty of the firearm enhancement. Appellant Br. at 6; see also R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g\nTr. at 15–16) (Page ID #465–66).\n\n On July 20, 2016, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Shanklin on a\nsingle count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)\nand 924(a)(2). R. 1 (Indictment at 1) (Page ID #1). Prior to trial, Shanklin’s defense counsel\nfiled a motion to compel the government to disclose the identity of the confidential informant\nwho spoke to McKinney in September 2013. R. 29 (Page ID #71). Shanklin asserted that the\nCI’s identity was necessary to establish his defense because “[i]t is quite possible the CI placed\nor left items with[in] the residence that are now being attributed to Shanklin.” Id. at 3 (Page ID\n#73). The district court denied the motion, concluding that Shanklin had not provided any\nevidence indicating how the CI’s identity would assist him in preparing his defense. R. 44\n(Order at 5–9) (Page ID #121–25).\n\n The case proceeded to trial. Following the government’s presentation of evidence,\nShanklin moved for a judgment of acquittal, asserting, among other things, that the government\nhad not presented any evidence that the individual at the defense table was Damon Shanklin. R.\n117 (Trial Tr. at 4–6) (Page ID #861–63). The district court denied Shanklin’s motion, noting\nthat, “I think he [Shanklin] was identified several times.” Id. at 6 (Page ID #863). The jury\nsubsequently convicted Shanklin on Count I of the indictment. R. 62 (Jury Verdict) (Page ID\n#231).\n\n Prior to sentencing, the United States Probation and Parole Office prepared a presentence\ninvestigation report (“PSR”). R. 83. The PSR listed Shanklin’s base offense level at 20 and\nincluded a four-level enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), which applies when a\ndefendant “use[s] or possesse[s] any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony\noffense.” Id. ¶¶ 15–16 (Page ID #367). Shanklin objected to the enhancement, asserting that\n“there was insufficient evidence that the firearm at issue was used or possessed ‘in connection\nwith another felony offense.’” R. 83-1 (PSR Addendum at 4) (Page ID #385). At his sentencing\nhearing, Shanklin again raised an objection to the four-level enhancement. R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 5\n\n\nTr. at 19–20) (Page ID #469–70). Relying upon the “fortress theory,” the district court\nconcluded that the enhancement applied, noting that “[t]he fact that the police found\napproximately 51 marijuana plants, digital scales, and literature about marijuana growing in\nShanklin’s house and a loaded gun in the only bedroom suggests that the gun was in close\nproximity to Mr. Shanklin’s marijuana cultivation, trafficking activity.” Id. at 31–32 (Page ID\n#481–82). The district court subsequently adopted the PSR’s recommendations, which\nestablished Shanklin’s total offense level as 24, criminal history category as III, and the advisory\nguideline range as 63 to 78 months. Id. at 53 (Page ID #503); see also R. 83 (PSR ¶ 66) (Page\nID #379). After Shanklin’s allocution, the district court reviewed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)\nsentencing factors and sentenced Shanklin to 63 months in prison with two years of supervised\nrelease. R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 45–47, 50–52) (Page ID #495–97, 500–02); R. 92 (Judgment\nat 3) (Page ID #424). Shanklin filed this timely appeal, R. 94 (Notice of Appeal) (Page ID\n#433), over which we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.\n\n II. DISCUSSION\n\nA. Disclosure of the Confidential Informant’s Identity\n\n In his first argument, Shanklin contends that the district court erred when it refused to\ncompel the government to identify the CI who had informed McKinney that the CI had seen\nmarijuana in the house occupied by Shanklin. Shanklin points to the affidavit supporting the\nsearch warrant for 2429 Elliott Avenue, which explained in relevant part:\n\n Detectives received information from a reliable confident[i]al informant that has\n been proven reliable by giving information in the past on numerous occasions that\n has lead to the arrest and seizure of narcotics. The confident[i]al informant\n wishes to remain anonymous for his/her safety. Within the last 48 hours of this\n affidavit being drafted the confident[i]al informant observed numerous marijuana\n plants inside 2429 Elliott Ave. Confiden[ti]al reliable informant advises Damon\n L Shanklin is the only occupant of the home.\n\nR. 29-2 (Search Warrant Affidavit at 2) (Page ID #79). In his motion before the district court,\nShanklin argued that because “[t]he affidavit suggests that the CI was inside the residence shortly\nbefore the issuance of the search warrant[, i]t is quite possible the CI placed or left items with in\n[sic] the residence that are now being attributed to Shanklin.” R. 29 (Mot. to Compel Disclosure\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 6\n\n\nat 3) (Page ID #73). Thus, Shanklin asserted that the CI’s identity “is material to the defendant’s\ndefense in this case” and must be disclosed. Id. The district court denied Shanklin’s motion,\nconcluding that Shanklin “failed to provide evidence that the informant’s identity would help\nhim prepare his defense.” R. 44 (Order at 8) (Page ID #124).\n\n On appeal, Shanklin raises the same arguments, asserting that the district court’s refusal\nto order disclosure rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. See Appellant Br. at 3. Shanklin also\ncontends that because the search warrant affidavit relied entirely on the CI’s statements and\n“[t]here would be good reason to believe that the [CI] was motivated by monetary compensation\nor a particularly favorable plea deal,” Shanklin should have been able to cross-examine the CI in\norder to impeach his/her credibility. See Appellant Br. at 14–18.\n\n 1. Standard of Review & Applicable Law\n\n “The question of disclosure is generally left to the district court’s discretion”; we thus\nreview a district court’s denial of a motion to compel disclosure for abuse of discretion. United\nStates v. Doxey, 833 F.3d 692, 706–07 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2204 (2017).\n“A district court abuses its discretion when it applies the incorrect legal standard, misapplies the\ncorrect legal standard, or relies upon clearly erroneous findings of fact.” United States v. Pugh,\n405 F.3d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n Shanklin’s motion to compel is governed by Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53\n(1957), in which the Supreme Court recognized the government’s privilege to withhold the\nidentities of confidential informants from criminal defendants. The privilege is meant to\nencourage citizens to inform authorities about the commission of crimes by ensuring their\nanonymity. United States v. Barnett, 418 F.2d 309, 311 (6th Cir. 1969); see also United States v.\nLloyd, 400 F.2d 414, 415 (6th Cir. 1968) (explaining that anonymity is particularly important\nwhen investigating drug transactions, since the CI and the defendant usually engage in a\nconsensual interaction and the government is thus more reliant on the CI’s testimony).\nAdditionally, when the CI is considered “reliable” and has provided authorities with necessary\ninformation in the past, the police have an important interest in maintaining the CI’s anonymity\nso that the government may utilize the CI’s knowledge and connections in the future.\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 7\n\n\n Importantly, however, this privilege is limited by “the fundamental requirements of\nfairness” and necessitates a balance between “the public interest in protecting the flow of\ninformation against the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 60, 62.\nThus, when “disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is\nrelevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a\ncause, the privilege must give way.” Id. at 60–61. Courts determining whether to order\ndisclosure must consider “the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the\ncrime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and\nother relevant factors.” Doxey, 833 F.3d at 706 (quoting Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62). This court\nhas noted that “[w]e usually deny disclosure when the informer was not a participant in the\nunderlying alleged crime, and instead was a mere tipster or introducer.” Id. at 707 (internal\nquotation marks omitted). Moreover, because “[a] defendant must provide some evidence that\ndisclosure of the informant’s identity would assist in his defense before disclosure will be\nwarranted,” United States v. Ray, 803 F.3d 244, 274 (6th Cir. 2015), “[m]ere conjecture or\nsupposition about the possible relevancy of the informant’s testimony is insufficient to warrant\ndisclosure,” United States v. Sharp, 778 F.2d 1182, 1187 (6th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation\nmarks omitted). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating “how disclosure of the\ninformant would substantively assist in his defense.” United States v. Sierra-Villegas, 774 F.3d\n1093, 1099 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Moore, 954 F.2d 379, 381 (6th Cir. 1992)).\n\n 2. Impeachment of the Confidential Informant\n\n Shanklin first argues that disclosure was required so that he could impeach the CI. See\ngenerally Appellant Br. at 14–19. To the extent Shanklin’s argument is made pursuant to either\nthe Confrontation Clause or more general notions of fairness 1, we have previously held that\nwhen “[t]he CI did not testify and none of the CI’s statements were offered for their truth at\ntrial,” a defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him has not been violated. Doxey, 833\nF.3d at 708; see also United States v. Sales, 247 F. App’x 730, 735 (6th Cir. 2007) (concluding\n\n 1Although Shanklin generally asserts that he should be permitted to probe the credibility of the CI,\nShanklin mentions the Confrontation Clause specifically in only the Statement of the Issues in his appellate brief.\nSee Appellant Br. at 3. Instead, Shanklin’s brief primarily asserts that disclosure was required for fairness reasons\nonly.\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 8\n\n\nthat, in the context of a defendant’s request for disclosure, the defendant’s “confrontation right\nwas not implicated because the testimony was provided merely by way of background” (quoting\nUnited States v. Cromer, 389 F.3d 662, 676 (6th Cir. 2004))). In such a case, we have reasoned\nthat because the statements are not introduced for their truth, the CI’s reliability “would not make\nany fact of consequence more or less likely.” Doxey, 833 F.3d at 708 (internal quotation marks\nomitted).\n\n Shanklin has not identified any statements attributed to the CI that were introduced for\ntheir truth by the government. Rather, a fair reading of the trial transcript indicates that\ntestimony regarding the CI’s affidavit primarily served as a background explanation for the\nofficers’ search of 2429 Elliott Avenue. See R. 116 (McKinney Test. at 160–61) (Page ID #791–\n92) (stating that after receiving information from the “reliable confidential informant,”\nMcKinney did some investigation into the house and set up surveillance of the residence); id. at\n97 (Schardein Test.) (Page ID #728) (explaining that McKinney informed other officers that “he\nhad information of a potential grow in the area of Elliott” and they subsequently set up\nsurveillance of the home). To the extent that McKinney testified regarding the particular\nstatements included in the affidavit, these statements were either in response to defense counsel’s\ncross-examination or truthfully described the contents of the search warrant affidavit, which had\nbeen introduced as Defense Exhibit 2. See id. at 199–200 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #830–31)\n(explaining on cross-examination that the CI had been in the house 48 hours before Shanklin’s\narrest); id. at 218–20 (Page ID #849–51) (stating on re-direct that he had not ordered the CI to\nplant the gun and agreeing with the prosecutor that “[t]here’s nothing in [the affidavit] about the\ninformant telling you, hey, he’s got a gun”); id. at 214 (Page ID #845) (introducing the search\nwarrant as Defense Exhibit 2); R. 119 (Page ID #924) (listing the affidavit as Defense Exhibit 2).\n\n Additionally, and as explained in more detail below, because the CI’s statements did not\nrelate to any evidence supporting the charged crime (possession of a firearm), the CI’s credibility\nwas not a sufficient reason to order disclosure. See Sierra-Villegas, 774 F.3d at 1099–1100\n(concluding that because the CI’s statements were not introduced for their truth and the\ndefendant was being convicted for items found pursuant to a search warrant based upon the CI’s\ntip, the fact that “the original source of investigators’ suspicions might have been untrustworthy\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 9\n\n\nhas no bearing on the reliability of the evidence the investigators subsequently found”). Finally,\nalthough it is not dispositive, our review of the record does show that Shanklin’s defense\nattorney was able to introduce the theory that Shanklin had been framed, either by the police or\nthe CI. See Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62 (concluding that one of the factors to consider for disclosure\nis “the possible significance of the informer’s testimony”). For instance, on cross-examination,\nMcKinney explained that although the affidavit stated that the CI had been in the house within\n48 hours of the search of 2429 Elliott Avenue, McKinney could not confirm whether the CI was\nalone in the house, what the CI had done while in the residence, and whether the CI had brought\nanything into the house. R. 116 (McKinney Test. at 199–200) (Page ID #830–31). Additionally,\ndefense counsel was able to question McKinney about whether the CI may have had an ulterior\nmotive in reporting Shanklin or a personal grudge against Shanklin. Id. at 220 (McKinney Test.)\n(Page ID #851). Defense counsel also called into question the credibility of narcotics informers\ngenerally, asking McKinney whether CIs were sometimes “drug addicts” who often exchanged\ninformation to “get charges eliminated.” Id. at 197–98 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #828–29).\n\n 3. Support of Shanklin’s Defense\n\n In addition to his credibility argument, Shanklin’s primary claim on appeal relies on the\nviability of his claimed defense, namely that the gun was not his and the CI planted the firearm at\n2429 Elliott Avenue in an effort to frame him. Appellant Br. at 18. Although this is a closer\nissue than Shanklin’s credibility argument, we do not believe that the district court abused its\ndiscretion in denying Shanklin’s motion to disclose in light of the specific facts of this case and\nour deferential standard of review.\n\n As noted above, a defendant must point to some evidence supporting his motion for\ndisclosure; “[m]ere conjecture” that the CI’s identity will assist in the defendant’s defense is\ninsufficient. Sharp, 778 F.2d at 1187 (internal quotation marks omitted). Admittedly, our\nprecedent has not specified what kind of evidence (and what amount) a defendant is required to\nproduce before he successfully requests disclosure. Indeed, when a defendant’s primary\nargument in favor of disclosure rests on the likelihood that the CI possesses necessary\ninformation for the defendant’s sole defense, it is entirely possible that the majority of the\ndefendant’s disclosure motion will rely on “speculation” about the CI’s testimony. On the other\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 10\n\n\nhand, were we to permit defendants to require disclosure based on otherwise unsupported\nhypotheses that have no basis in the facts of the case, we would severely limit the government’s\nability to maintain the anonymity of reliable, and oftentimes necessary, CIs. In the context of\nthis case, for instance, while a defendant is surely permitted to argue that a third party, including\nthe CI, may have planted an item in the defendant’s residence, without some evidence creating a\nplausible inference that the CI could have planted that evidence, the government should not be\nrequired to disclose the CI’s identity. See Sierra-Villegas, 774 F.3d at 1100 (rejecting the\ndefendant’s argument in favor of disclosure when “[a]lthough it is not impossible, it is\nimplausible that the CI framed [the defendant] . . . or would testify to this effect”); Sharp, 778\nF.2d at 1187 (concluding that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered disclosure\nbased only on defense counsel’s unsworn representations and remanding for the district court to\nconduct an in camera hearing to determine the relevancy of the CI’s testimony).\n\n In Shanklin’s case, we conclude that Shanklin has not made this required evidentiary\nshowing. First, although Shanklin contends that at least seven individuals may have “received\nmail at” 2429 Elliott Avenue, R. 42 (Def.’s Reply Br. at 1–2) (Page ID #109–10), Shanklin did\nnot subpoena any of those individuals to question them regarding their relationship to the\nresidence, whether they were confidential informants, or whether they had seen a weapon in the\nresidence recently. This despite the fact that the evidence in the record identified many of these\nindividuals by name. See, e.g., R. 132-1 (Gov’t Exs. at 66, 78) (Page ID #1050, 1062); R. 132-2\n(Gov’t Exs. at 10–11, 21–23) (Page ID #1078–79, 1089–91). Similarly, Shanklin could have\nprovided affidavits or testimony from friends or family, including his mother, regarding their\nfamiliarity with the residence and whether they had ever seen Shanklin possess a weapon in or\naround 2429 Elliott Avenue. Such evidence could have suggested that (1) Shanklin did not own\na gun and (2) any weapon found in the residence had to have been left by another person. While\nwe need not decide whether, standing alone, such evidence would have pushed the balance in\nfavor of requiring disclosure, without providing even this modicum of evidence, Shanklin has\nnot shown that the CI’s testimony would plausibly support his claim that he had been framed.2\n\n\n\n 2Although not dispositive, the plausibility of Shanklin’s argument is further diminished when we consider\nthe fact that officers observed Shanklin leaving the residence before arresting him and confirmed that no one else\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 11\n\n\n In addition to Shanklin’s lack of evidence, the CI in this case is more aptly described as a\n“tipster,” rather than an active participant. See Doxey, 833 F.3d at 707 (“We usually deny\ndisclosure when the informer was not a participant in the underlying alleged crime, and instead\nwas a mere tipster or introducer.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). When the CI informed\nMcKinney about Shanklin’s criminal activity, the CI stated only that he had seen marijuana\nplants in 2429 Elliott Avenue and did not suggest that there was a firearm in the residence or that\nShanklin possessed one. R. 29-2 (Search Warrant Affidavit at 2) (Page ID #79). After\nsurveilling the house and confirming that there was a “strong odor of marijuana” from the home,\nthe officers secured a search warrant to search for marijuana and related paraphernalia. Id. at\n78–82. In addition to confirming the presence of numerous marijuana plants, as the CI had\nclaimed, the officers also located the firearm at issue here. R. 132-3 (Seized Property Log) (Page\nID #1114). We have previously held that when a CI does not participate in the underlying crime\nand instead merely puts a fruitful search into motion, the government is not required to disclose\nthe CI’s identity. United States v. Beals, 698 F.3d 248, 270 (6th Cir. 2012) (denying disclosure\nwhen “the only role the confidential informant played was supplying reliable information to\npolice that led to a fruitful search”); United States v. McManus, 560 F.2d 747, 751 (6th Cir.\n1977) (concluding that no disclosure was required when “[t]he evidence upon which the\nappellant was convicted was secured by government agents personally and was in no way\ndependent on any informer” (internal quotation marks omitted)).\n\n Admittedly, this case is somewhat distinguishable from Beals and similar cases; although\nthe CI did not provide any information suggesting that he/she had seen a weapon in the\nresidence, Shanklin’s primary defense was that the CI was actively involved in the underlying\ncrime of ensuring that Shanklin possessed the weapon. Cf. Beals, 698 F.3d at 270 (noting that\ndisclosure was unnecessary because although the CI had told officers about various drugs and\nweapons in the defendant’s garage, the CI was not involved in providing the defendant with any\n\n\nentered the house. See R. 116 (Schardein Test. at 97–98) (Page ID #728–29) (explaining that they observed\nShanklin exit the residence); id. at 131 (Evans Test.) (Page ID #762) (testifying that no one entered or exited the\nresidence in the hour between when Shanklin left and when the search was conducted). Considering the small size\nof the residence, the fact that Shanklin appeared to be residing in the house, and the visibility of the weapon on the\nbedside table, Shanklin seemingly would have seen the weapon between the time the CI was in his house and the\ntime Shanklin was arrested.\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 12\n\n\nof the contraband). However, as noted above, Shanklin failed to provide any evidence\nsupporting this claim. Furthermore, because the CI made no mention of the weapon in his\nstatement to McKinney, there was no suggestion that the CI had any particular knowledge about\nthe location of the weapon in the residence at 2429 Elliott Avenue or would have had the\nopportunity to plant the firearm. Given the lack of evidence supporting Shanklin’s defense, as\nwell as the limited statement by the CI concerning marijuana only, we conclude that the district\ncourt did not abuse its discretion when it denied Shanklin’s motion for disclosure of the CI’s\nidentity.\n\nB. Identification of Shanklin\n\n Shanklin next argues that the government failed to present sufficient evidence supporting\nhis conviction and, therefore, the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal under\nFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 29. Specifically, Shanklin contends that the\ngovernment did not present any evidence showing that the individual in the courtroom, as well as\nthe individual who was the focus of the witnesses’ testimony, was, in fact, Shanklin. Appellant\nBr. at 26 (“[T]he Government failed to present any evidence that the man sitting accused in the\ncourtroom was the same man that was arrested the day in question. No witness even attempted\nto provide an in-court identification of the defendant.”). The government responds that because\nsufficient circumstantial evidence supported a finding that Shanklin was the correct, named\ndefendant, the district court correctly denied Shanklin’s Rule 29 motion. Appellee Br. at 15–18.\n\n “[T]his Court reviews de novo a district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion for judgment\nof acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence.” United States v. Clay, 667 F.3d 689,\n693 (6th Cir. 2012). “The Court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the\ngovernment, and then determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential\nelements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (emphasis added). In so doing, the court\n“must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court, regardless of whether that evidence\nwas admitted erroneously.” McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 131 (2010) (internal quotation\nmarks omitted). The defendant thus “bears a very heavy burden.” Clay, 667 F.3d at 693\n(quoting United States v. Davis, 397 F.3d 340, 344 (6th Cir. 2005)).\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 13\n\n\n Shanklin has failed to meet this burden. “It is well-settled that an essential element that\nthe government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the identification of a defendant as the\nperson who perpetrated the crime charged.” United States v. Boyd, 447 F. App’x 684, 690 (6th\nCir. 2011) (citing United States v. Green, 757 F.2d 116, 119 (7th Cir. 1985)). However, in order\nto make that showing, the government need not present direct, in-court identifications of the\ndefendant. Id. Rather, circumstantial evidence may support the identification of the defendant.\nClay, 667 F.3d at 701–02. Such evidence may include the fact that the defendant has the same\nname as the person charged in the indictment, the defendant’s willingness to enter into\nevidentiary stipulations, defense counsel’s identification of the defendant at trial, and witnesses’\nfailure to deny the defendant’s identity. Boyd, 447 F. App’x at 690 (collecting cases).\n\n Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude that\nthere was sufficient circumstantial evidence to identify Shanklin as the perpetrator of the charged\ncrime. First, Shanklin and the named defendant in the indictment shared the same name, a fact\nthat was reinforced when the district court introduced the case to the jury. See R. 1 (Indictment\nat 1) (Page ID #1); R. 116 (Trial Tr. at 9–10) (Page ID #640–41) (calling the case as “United\nStates of American v. Damon Shanklin” and stating that “[i]n this case, the defendant,\nMr. Shanklin, is charged with [the asserted crime]. Those are the charges against the defendant.\nThe defendant has pled not guilty to those charges”). Second, defense counsel referred to\nShanklin by name at least twice before the jury. During voir dire, defense counsel introduced\nhimself to the jury and explained: “It’s my honor to represent Damon Shanklin, who is present\nstanding next to my right.” R. 116 (Trial Tr. at 12) (Page ID #643). Next, during closing\nargument, defense counsel stated: “[O]n behalf of my client, Mr. Shanklin, I’d like to thank you\nfor your attention in this case.” R. 117 (Trial Tr. at 17) (Page ID #874). Similarly, defense\ncounsel never objected when Schardein referred to Mr. Shanklin as “the defendant,” see R. 116\n(Schardein Test. at 103) (Page ID #734) (explaining that he took a photograph of the house and\n“took a photograph of the defendant and then photographed as items were called out”), and\nwitnesses testified regarding their familiarity with Shanklin but did not suggest that the wrong\ndefendant was on trial, see e.g., id. (Schardein Test. at 97) (Page ID #728); id. at 163–65\n(McKinney Test.) (Page ID #794–96). Additionally, defense counsel did not raise Shanklin’s\nidentity as an issue during trial or object when the government introduced photographs that\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 14\n\n\nMcKinney confirmed depicted “Damon Shanklin.” Id. at 180 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #811);\nsee also R. 132-1 (Gov’t Exs. at 64–65) (Page ID #1048–49); id. at 68–69 (Page ID #1052–53).\nFinally, both parties stipulated that “[t]he defendant, Damon Shanklin, and the United States of\nAmerica stipulate and agree that prior to September 3rd, 2013, Damon Shanklin had been\nconvicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”\nR. 117 (Trial Tr. at 3) (Page ID #860). Read in the light most favorable to the government and\nwith all reasonable inferences drawn in support of the jury’s verdict, there was sufficient\nevidence to support the jury’s identification of Shanklin as the named defendant in the courtroom\nand in the indictment. Consequently, the district court did not err in denying Shanklin’s Rule 29\nmotion for lack of identification evidence.\n\nC. Application of USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)\n\n In his final argument, Shanklin asserts that the district court erred when it applied the\nfour-level sentencing enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing a\nfirearm in connection with another felony offense, namely the cultivation of marijuana. See R.\n83 (PSR ¶ 16) (Page ID #367); R. 83-1 (PSR Addendum at 1–2) (Page ID #382–83).\nSpecifically, Shanklin contends that the government failed to show the necessary nexus between\nhis possession of a firearm and “another felony offense,” thus rendering his sentence\nprocedurally unreasonable. Appellant Br. at 27–30. The government responds that under the\ntext of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) and its application notes, supported by the “fortress theory,” there was\nsufficient evidence showing that Shanklin’s possession of the gun facilitated the felony offense\nof marijuana cultivation. Appellee Br. at 20–27.\n\n 1. Standard of Review & Applicable Law\n\n “Our review of procedural reasonableness includes determining whether the district court\nproperly calculated a defendant’s Guidelines range.” United States v. Seymour, 739 F.3d 923,\n929 (6th Cir. 2014). Although we generally review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo\nwhen examining the district court’s guideline calculation, “[i]n the specific context of the\n§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) firearm enhancement, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings for clear\nerror and accord due deference to the district court’s determination that the firearm was used or\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 15\n\n\npossessed in connection with the other felony, thus warranting the application of the . . .\nenhancement.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Taylor, 648\nF.3d 417, 432 (6th Cir. 2011)). This standard recognizes that when a defendant “challenges the\ndistrict court’s determination that the firearm was used or possessed ‘in connection with’ the\n[other felony offense]––i.e., that there was a nexus between the firearm and the felony––,” that\ninquiry is necessarily “fact-specific” and thus better examined by the district court. Taylor, 648\nF.3d at 431 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Ennenga, 263 F.3d 499,\n502 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001), and explaining that the\nfact-specific inquiry requires a more deferential standard of review); Buford, 532 U.S. at 64–66\n(holding that appellate courts must review deferentially a district court’s conclusion that past\nconvictions are “related” under the sentencing guidelines because it is largely a fact-intensive\ninquiry that district courts are in a better position to examine). As always, “[t]he government\nbears the burden of establishing the factors supporting this enhancement by a preponderance of\nthe evidence.” Seymour, 739 F.3d at 929.\n\n Pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), a defendant’s offense level is increased by four levels if,\namong other things, the defendant “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection\nwith another felony offense.” The application note further explains that “another felony offense”\nis “any federal, state, or local offense, other than the explosive or firearms possession or\ntrafficking offense, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, regardless of\nwhether a criminal charge was brought, or a conviction obtained.” Id. cmt. 14(C). Finally, per\nthe application note, subsection (b)(6)(B) applies “if the firearm or ammunition facilitated, or\nhad the potential of facilitating, another felony offense.” Id. cmt. 14(A).\n\n In the current case, the district court concluded that, pursuant to the “fortress theory,” the\nfour-level enhancement properly applied to Shanklin. R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 32) (Page ID\n#482). The fortress theory permits the application of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) “if it reasonably appears\nthat the firearms found on the premises controlled or owned by a defendant and in his actual or\nconstructive possession are to be used to protect the drugs or otherwise facilitate a drug\ntransaction.” United States v. Angel, 576 F.3d 318, 321 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks\nomitted). A narrow version of the fortress theory has been recognized in application note 14(B),\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 16\n\n\nwhich explains that in the case of drug trafficking, the enhancement applies if the firearm was\n“found in close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug paraphernalia.”\nSeymour, 739 F.3d at 930 (quoting § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), cmt. 14(B)); United States v. Shields,\n664 F.3d 1040, 1045 (6th Cir. 2011) (explaining that when the “other offense” is drug\ntrafficking, close proximity between the firearm and the drug materials is sufficient to apply the\nenhancement). In the case of a drug-trafficking offense, the enhancement “is warranted\nbecause the presence of the firearm has the potential of facilitating another felony offense.”\nUSSG § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(B).\n\n If the other felony offense does not implicate drug trafficking––for instance, if the\ndefendant merely possessed a controlled substance––“the enhancement applies only if the\ngovernment can establish that the firearm actually or potentially facilitated that offense.”\nShields, 664 F.3d at 1045 (internal quotation marks omitted). “To allow otherwise would render\nthe distinction in the Guidelines commentary between drug trafficking and other felonies\nmeaningless.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In order to show that the firearm\n“facilitated” the other felony offense under the fortress theory, reviewing courts consider the\nproximity of the gun to the drugs, whether the defendant had an innocent explanation for the\nweapon (such as personal protection), the type of firearm, and whether the firearm was loaded.\nTaylor, 648 F.3d at 432–33. Additionally, courts examine the accessibility of the gun, Angel,\n576 F.3d at 321, as well as the amount of drugs in proximity to the firearm, Seymour, 739 F.3d at\n930–31. Ultimately, “§ 2K2.1 applies if the firearm had some emboldening role in a defendant’s\nfelonious conduct.” Angel, 576 F.3d at 321 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration\nincorporated).\n\n 2. Analysis\n\n The district court concluded that, under the fortress theory, Shanklin’s possession of the\nfirearm was in furtherance of the other felony offense of “marijuana cultivation, trafficking\nactivity.” R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 32) (Page ID #482). The district court based this finding on\nthe plain language of § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(B), the amount of marijuana found in Shanklin’s\nresidence, the small size of the house, the location of the firearm (in the sole bedroom in the\nhouse and next to a digital scale and marijuana-growing magazine), and the fact that the firearm\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 17\n\n\nwas loaded. Id. at 31–33 (Page ID #481–83). Reviewing the district court’s conclusion with the\nrequired “due deference,” we agree that the four-level enhancement applied to Shanklin’s\nguideline calculation.\n\n First, although it is not immediately clear from the record, it appears that the other felony\noffense identified by the district court, “marijuana cultivation, trafficking activity,” would fall\nunder the narrow version of the fortress theory recognized in comment 14(B) of the application\nnotes. See Seymour, 739 F.3d at 930 (quoting § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), cmt. 14(B) and explaining that\nwhen the other felony offense was drug trafficking, the enhancement applied if the gun was in\n“‘close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug paraphernalia’”). Shanklin\nhas not contested the district court’s determination that the other felony offense was “marijuana\ncultivation, trafficking activity”; rather, Shanklin contends only that there was an insufficient\nnexus between the gun possession and the other felony offense. Appellant Br. at 29–31.\nMoreover, in the related state case, Shanklin was convicted of cultivating five or more plants in\nviolation of Kentucky Revised Statute § 218A.1423. Section 218A.1423 explains that “[a]\nperson is guilty of marijuana cultivation when he knowingly and unlawfully . . . cultivates . . .\nmarijuana with the intent to sell or transfer it.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 218A.1423(1) (emphasis\nadded); see also Appellee Br. at 6 n.2. Finally, as the district court noted, the gun was located in\na residence which also housed “51 marijuana plants, digital scales, and literature about marijuana\ngrowing.” R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 32) (Page ID #482). The amount of marijuana involved, as\nwell as the listed drug paraphernalia, strongly suggests that Shanklin was engaged in “drug\ntrafficking” pursuant to § 2K2.1 cmt. 14(B). Such a conclusion weighs in favor of applying the\nfour-level enhancement. See Shields, 664 F.3d at 1046 (noting that because drug trafficking\nusually involves ensuring that a transaction takes place, “it is easier to see how a firearm\nfacilitates drug trafficking transactions[ ] than it is to see how a firearm facilitates the mere\npossession of controlled substances”).\n\n Even if the other felony offense did not constitute “drug trafficking,” the quantity of\nmarijuana plants found in Shanklin’s residence––51 plants capable of producing $51,000 worth\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 18\n\n\nof marijuana each harvesting cycle3––is consistent with similar cases where we have applied the\nfortress theory. See Angel, 576 F.3d at 319–20, 322 (applying the enhancement when the\ndefendant had three firearms on the same property as fourteen marijuana plants, which were\nlocated on the perimeter of the property, and the weapons were discovered in the upstairs\nbedroom, which also contained 81.2 grams of processed marijuana and drug paraphernalia);\nEnnenga, 263 F.3d at 501, 503–04 (applying the enhancement when the defendant had\n34 marijuana plants in a separate room, an enhanced security system for the entire apartment,\nand ammunition in the same room as a small amount of marijuana); id. at 504 (“When one is in\npossession of a large and valuable stash of drugs, the desire to protect these illicit substances can\nbe compelling.”); see also Shields, 664 F.3d at 1046 (noting that the more relevant inquiry is the\namount of drugs in the defendant’s possession, since “carrying objects of great value is naturally\nfacilitated by the security of being armed––whether the objects are intended for sale or not”); cf.\nSeymour, 739 F.3d at 930 (“[W]e have resorted to the fortress theory more sparingly in cases that\ninvolve simple possession of smaller amounts of drugs.”).\n\n In response, Shanklin asserts that, because the firearm was located in the bedroom and\nwas therefore separate from the growing operation in another area of the house, there was no\n“nexus” between his possession of the weapon and the cultivation of marijuana. Appellant Br. at\n29–31. Although the “proximity” of the weapon to drugs is often a key factor in applying the\nenhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), see United States v. Jackson, 877 F.3d 231, 239–40 (6th\nCir. 2017), we have never established a bright-line test. Indeed, in United States v. Taylor, we\naffirmed the application of the enhancement when the defendant was trafficking drugs from his\nhouse and the loaded firearms were found on the floor of a separate room in the house. Taylor,\n648 F.3d at 432–33. Additionally, the firearm at issue in this case was loaded and located on a\nnightstand in the sole bedroom of a very small house controlled only by Shanklin. Id. at 433\n(noting that the type of firearm and whether it was loaded were factors in applying the fortress\n\n\n\n\n 3The above amount is based on McKinney’s testimony at trial that (1) Shanklin’s residence contained\n51 marijuana plants; (2) each plant produced five to eight ounces of marijuana per harvest cycle; and (3) one ounce\nof marijuana sold for approximately $200 or $250. R. 116 (McKinney Test. at 183–85) (Page ID #814–16).\n\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 19\n\n\ntheory); Angel, 576 F.3d at 321 (explaining that courts examine the accessibility of the gun).4\nFinally, drug paraphernalia related to marijuana cultivation was located throughout the house,\nfurther suggesting that Shanklin intended to fortify the entire residence in an effort to support\nand protect his marijuana cultivation. See R. 132-3 (Seized Property Log) (Page ID #1114)\n(explaining that three marijuana plants were found in the front living room closet and digital\nscales were located on the living room coffee table); R. 116 (Reccius Test. at 141) (Page ID\n#772) (stating that the bedroom was off of the living room). Shanklin’s case is thus\ndistinguishable from Jackson, where the defendant kept his weapon “in a property down the\nblock” from where the defendant conducted drug transactions, thereby destroying any “offensive\nor defensive use to him.” Jackson, 877 F.3d at 240; cf. United States v. Heighton, 272 F. App’x\n469, 472 (6th Cir. 2008) (applying the enhancement even though the firearms were found in a\nseparate section of the house because “[t]he arsenal of unsecured, loaded weapons scattered\nabout the premises, and the attendant video surveillance system, served to provide security for\nthe manufacture and/or sale of narcotics on Heighton’s property”). Given the deferential nature\nof our review, the number and value of the marijuana plants at 2429 Elliott Avenue, the small\nsize of the residence, the location of the loaded weapon in the bedroom, and the presence of drug\nparaphernalia throughout the house, a preponderance of the evidence supported application of\nthe four-level enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). We thus affirm Shanklin’s sentence.\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM Shanklin’s conviction and sentence.\n\n\n\n\n 4Contrary to Shanklin’s contention on appeal, a preponderance of the evidence supported the district\ncourt’s conclusion that Shanklin was the sole resident of 2429 Elliott Avenue. See R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 32)\n(Page ID #482). There were various letters and bills addressed to Shanklin at the address, Shanklin’s personal items\nsuch as photographs, medical prescriptions, and car registrations were found in the house, Shanklin gave the officers\na key to the house following his arrest, Shanklin was seen exiting the house an hour before the gun was recovered,\nand there was only one bedroom in the small residence.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon Lamont SHANKLIN, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-24\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0101p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5289\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n DAMON LAMONT SHANKLIN, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.\\n No. 3:16-cr-00085-1—Thomas B. Russell, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: May 2, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 24, 2019\\n\\n Before: MOORE, SUTTON, MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Thomas W. Kidd, Jr., KIDD & URLING LLC, West Chester, Ohio, for Appellant.\\nErin McKenzie, UNITED STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.\\nON BRIEF: Thomas W. Kidd, Jr., KIDD & URLING LLC, West Chester, Ohio, for Appellant.\\nErin McKenzie, UNITED STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Damon Lamont Shanklin appeals his\\nconviction and sentence, following a jury trial, for being a felon in possession of a firearm in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Shanklin contends that (1) the district court\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 2\\n\\n\\nerred when it denied his motion to compel the government to disclose the identity of a\\nconfidential informant (“CI”); (2) the government failed to provide sufficient identification\\nevidence to sustain Shanklin’s conviction; and (3) the district court erred when it applied a\\nsentencing enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing a firearm or\\nammunition “in connection with another felony offense.” For the reasons stated below, we reject\\nthese arguments and AFFIRM Shanklin’s conviction and sentence.\\n\\n I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND\\n\\n On September 3, 2013, Louisville police began surveilling 2429 Elliott Avenue to\\ninvestigate a tip that Damon Shanklin was growing marijuana at the location. R. 116 (McKinney\\nTest. at 160, 194) (Page ID #791, 825); id. at 97 (Schardein Test.) (Page ID #728). The tip came\\nfrom a “reliable confident[i]al informant,” who informed Detective Kevin McKinney that within\\nthe last 48 hours, he/she had seen “numerous” marijuana plants inside the residence and that\\nhe/she believed that Shanklin was the “only occupant of the home.” R. 29-2 (Search Warrant\\nAffidavit at 2) (Page ID #79). After beginning surveillance on September 3, 2013, McKinney\\nand other officers observed Shanklin exit 2429 Elliott Avenue and enter a vehicle. R. 116\\n(Schardein Test. at 97) (Page ID #728); id. at 161–62 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #792–93).\\nMcKinney began to follow Shanklin, who drove a short distance and eventually pulled into the\\nparking lot of a convenience store. Id. at 163–64 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #794–95).\\nMcKinney and other officers subsequently approached Shanklin, confirmed his identity, and had\\na K-9 sniff the outside of Shanklin’s car. Id. at 164–65 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #795–96).\\nThe dog alerted to the trunk area, and a search of the car revealed a small amount of marijuana\\nleaves in the trunk. Id.\\n\\n During this investigation, McKinney notified other officers to continue to surveil the\\nresidence to ensure that no one exited or entered 2429 Elliott Avenue; no one did. Id. at 130–31\\n(Evans Test.) (Page ID #761–62). One of the officers testified that when he approached the\\nhouse, he observed marijuana plants in the backyard and noticed a “strong smell of marijuana\\ncoming from the house.” Id. at 131 (Evans Test.) (Page ID #762). Based on the CI’s statements,\\nas well as the smell of marijuana from the residence, McKinney applied for and received a\\nsearch warrant for 2429 Elliott Avenue. See R. 29-2 (Search Warrant) (Page ID #78–82).\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 3\\n\\n\\n Officers subsequently executed the search warrant, using a key that Shanklin had given\\nthem to enter the residence. R. 116 (Schardein Test. at 116) (Page ID #747); id. at 169\\n(McKinney Test.) (Page ID #800). The house was small and had four rooms, including one front\\nbedroom. Id. at 124 (Schardein Test.) (Page ID #755); id. at 137 (Evans Test.) (Page ID #768).\\nDuring the search, officers located 51 bud-producing marijuana plants. Id. at 185 (McKinney\\nTest.) (Page ID #816); R. 132-3 (Seized Property Log) (Page ID #1114). Additionally, officers\\nfound a glass marijuana pipe in the kitchen sink, a digital scale in the living room, various letters\\naddressed to Shanklin at 2429 Elliott Avenue, and personal items associated with Shanklin,\\nincluding car registrations, photographs of Shanklin, a medication prescription from 2008, and a\\nmedical discharge notice from July 2013. R. 132-3 (Seized Property Log) (Page ID #1114); R.\\n132-1 (Gov’t Exs. at 9–10, 12–13, 57–61, 64–69, 72–74) (Page ID #993–94, 996–97, 1041–45,\\n1048–53, 1056–58); R. 132-2 (Gov’t Exs. at 16–20) (Page ID #1084–88). There were also a\\nsmall number of bills addressed to Shanklin’s mother, as well as other individuals, dated from\\n2010 to 2013. R. 132-1 (Gov’t Exs. at 66, 78) (Page ID #1050, 1062); R. 132-2 (Gov’t Exs. at\\n10–11, 21–23) (Page ID #1078–79, 1089–91).\\n\\n Finally, in the “front bedroom,” officers located a loaded 9-millimeter Glock pistol on the\\nnightstand, a digital scale, and a magazine focusing on growing marijuana. R. 132-3 (Seized\\nProperty Log) (Page ID #1114); R. 116 (Schardein Test. at 120–21) (Page ID #751–52); id. at\\n141 (Reccius Test.) (Page ID #772); id. at 174, 188 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #805, 819)\\n(testifying that the gun was located on the nightstand and that, based on a later photograph of the\\ngun and ammunition, a round of ammunition was found in the chamber of the gun); see also R.\\n88 (ATF Agent Test. at 3, 9) (Page ID #405, 411) (testifying about the ammunition). While\\nSchardein believes he took a photograph of the gun, all parties agree that the photograph could\\nnot be located and was not entered into evidence. R. 116 (Schardein Test. at 120–21) (Page ID\\n#751–52); Appellant Br. at 5.\\n\\n Shanklin was subsequently indicted by the Jefferson County Circuit Court for cultivating\\nfive or more plants of marijuana, in violation of Kentucky Revised Statute § 218A.1423, as well\\nas for possessing a handgun as a convicted felon. Although the firearm charge was later severed,\\nstate prosecutors amended the marijuana cultivation charge to include a sentence enhancement\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 4\\n\\n\\nbased upon Shanklin’s firearm possession. See Appellant Br. at 5–6; Appellee Br. at 6 n.2.\\nShanklin was then convicted of the marijuana cultivation charge in state court; the jury found\\nShanklin not guilty of the firearm enhancement. Appellant Br. at 6; see also R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g\\nTr. at 15–16) (Page ID #465–66).\\n\\n On July 20, 2016, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Shanklin on a\\nsingle count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)\\nand 924(a)(2). R. 1 (Indictment at 1) (Page ID #1). Prior to trial, Shanklin’s defense counsel\\nfiled a motion to compel the government to disclose the identity of the confidential informant\\nwho spoke to McKinney in September 2013. R. 29 (Page ID #71). Shanklin asserted that the\\nCI’s identity was necessary to establish his defense because “[i]t is quite possible the CI placed\\nor left items with[in] the residence that are now being attributed to Shanklin.” Id. at 3 (Page ID\\n#73). The district court denied the motion, concluding that Shanklin had not provided any\\nevidence indicating how the CI’s identity would assist him in preparing his defense. R. 44\\n(Order at 5–9) (Page ID #121–25).\\n\\n The case proceeded to trial. Following the government’s presentation of evidence,\\nShanklin moved for a judgment of acquittal, asserting, among other things, that the government\\nhad not presented any evidence that the individual at the defense table was Damon Shanklin. R.\\n117 (Trial Tr. at 4–6) (Page ID #861–63). The district court denied Shanklin’s motion, noting\\nthat, “I think he [Shanklin] was identified several times.” Id. at 6 (Page ID #863). The jury\\nsubsequently convicted Shanklin on Count I of the indictment. R. 62 (Jury Verdict) (Page ID\\n#231).\\n\\n Prior to sentencing, the United States Probation and Parole Office prepared a presentence\\ninvestigation report (“PSR”). R. 83. The PSR listed Shanklin’s base offense level at 20 and\\nincluded a four-level enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), which applies when a\\ndefendant “use[s] or possesse[s] any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony\\noffense.” Id. ¶¶ 15–16 (Page ID #367). Shanklin objected to the enhancement, asserting that\\n“there was insufficient evidence that the firearm at issue was used or possessed ‘in connection\\nwith another felony offense.’” R. 83-1 (PSR Addendum at 4) (Page ID #385). At his sentencing\\nhearing, Shanklin again raised an objection to the four-level enhancement. R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 5\\n\\n\\nTr. at 19–20) (Page ID #469–70). Relying upon the “fortress theory,” the district court\\nconcluded that the enhancement applied, noting that “[t]he fact that the police found\\napproximately 51 marijuana plants, digital scales, and literature about marijuana growing in\\nShanklin’s house and a loaded gun in the only bedroom suggests that the gun was in close\\nproximity to Mr. Shanklin’s marijuana cultivation, trafficking activity.” Id. at 31–32 (Page ID\\n#481–82). The district court subsequently adopted the PSR’s recommendations, which\\nestablished Shanklin’s total offense level as 24, criminal history category as III, and the advisory\\nguideline range as 63 to 78 months. Id. at 53 (Page ID #503); see also R. 83 (PSR ¶ 66) (Page\\nID #379). After Shanklin’s allocution, the district court reviewed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)\\nsentencing factors and sentenced Shanklin to 63 months in prison with two years of supervised\\nrelease. R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 45–47, 50–52) (Page ID #495–97, 500–02); R. 92 (Judgment\\nat 3) (Page ID #424). Shanklin filed this timely appeal, R. 94 (Notice of Appeal) (Page ID\\n#433), over which we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.\\n\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n\\nA. Disclosure of the Confidential Informant’s Identity\\n\\n In his first argument, Shanklin contends that the district court erred when it refused to\\ncompel the government to identify the CI who had informed McKinney that the CI had seen\\nmarijuana in the house occupied by Shanklin. Shanklin points to the affidavit supporting the\\nsearch warrant for 2429 Elliott Avenue, which explained in relevant part:\\n\\n Detectives received information from a reliable confident[i]al informant that has\\n been proven reliable by giving information in the past on numerous occasions that\\n has lead to the arrest and seizure of narcotics. The confident[i]al informant\\n wishes to remain anonymous for his/her safety. Within the last 48 hours of this\\n affidavit being drafted the confident[i]al informant observed numerous marijuana\\n plants inside 2429 Elliott Ave. Confiden[ti]al reliable informant advises Damon\\n L Shanklin is the only occupant of the home.\\n\\nR. 29-2 (Search Warrant Affidavit at 2) (Page ID #79). In his motion before the district court,\\nShanklin argued that because “[t]he affidavit suggests that the CI was inside the residence shortly\\nbefore the issuance of the search warrant[, i]t is quite possible the CI placed or left items with in\\n[sic] the residence that are now being attributed to Shanklin.” R. 29 (Mot. to Compel Disclosure\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 6\\n\\n\\nat 3) (Page ID #73). Thus, Shanklin asserted that the CI’s identity “is material to the defendant’s\\ndefense in this case” and must be disclosed. Id. The district court denied Shanklin’s motion,\\nconcluding that Shanklin “failed to provide evidence that the informant’s identity would help\\nhim prepare his defense.” R. 44 (Order at 8) (Page ID #124).\\n\\n On appeal, Shanklin raises the same arguments, asserting that the district court’s refusal\\nto order disclosure rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. See Appellant Br. at 3. Shanklin also\\ncontends that because the search warrant affidavit relied entirely on the CI’s statements and\\n“[t]here would be good reason to believe that the [CI] was motivated by monetary compensation\\nor a particularly favorable plea deal,” Shanklin should have been able to cross-examine the CI in\\norder to impeach his/her credibility. See Appellant Br. at 14–18.\\n\\n 1. Standard of Review & Applicable Law\\n\\n “The question of disclosure is generally left to the district court’s discretion”; we thus\\nreview a district court’s denial of a motion to compel disclosure for abuse of discretion. United\\nStates v. Doxey, 833 F.3d 692, 706–07 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2204 (2017).\\n“A district court abuses its discretion when it applies the incorrect legal standard, misapplies the\\ncorrect legal standard, or relies upon clearly erroneous findings of fact.” United States v. Pugh,\\n405 F.3d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n\\n Shanklin’s motion to compel is governed by Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53\\n(1957), in which the Supreme Court recognized the government’s privilege to withhold the\\nidentities of confidential informants from criminal defendants. The privilege is meant to\\nencourage citizens to inform authorities about the commission of crimes by ensuring their\\nanonymity. United States v. Barnett, 418 F.2d 309, 311 (6th Cir. 1969); see also United States v.\\nLloyd, 400 F.2d 414, 415 (6th Cir. 1968) (explaining that anonymity is particularly important\\nwhen investigating drug transactions, since the CI and the defendant usually engage in a\\nconsensual interaction and the government is thus more reliant on the CI’s testimony).\\nAdditionally, when the CI is considered “reliable” and has provided authorities with necessary\\ninformation in the past, the police have an important interest in maintaining the CI’s anonymity\\nso that the government may utilize the CI’s knowledge and connections in the future.\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 7\\n\\n\\n Importantly, however, this privilege is limited by “the fundamental requirements of\\nfairness” and necessitates a balance between “the public interest in protecting the flow of\\ninformation against the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 60, 62.\\nThus, when “disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is\\nrelevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a\\ncause, the privilege must give way.” Id. at 60–61. Courts determining whether to order\\ndisclosure must consider “the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the\\ncrime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and\\nother relevant factors.” Doxey, 833 F.3d at 706 (quoting Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62). This court\\nhas noted that “[w]e usually deny disclosure when the informer was not a participant in the\\nunderlying alleged crime, and instead was a mere tipster or introducer.” Id. at 707 (internal\\nquotation marks omitted). Moreover, because “[a] defendant must provide some evidence that\\ndisclosure of the informant’s identity would assist in his defense before disclosure will be\\nwarranted,” United States v. Ray, 803 F.3d 244, 274 (6th Cir. 2015), “[m]ere conjecture or\\nsupposition about the possible relevancy of the informant’s testimony is insufficient to warrant\\ndisclosure,” United States v. Sharp, 778 F.2d 1182, 1187 (6th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation\\nmarks omitted). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating “how disclosure of the\\ninformant would substantively assist in his defense.” United States v. Sierra-Villegas, 774 F.3d\\n1093, 1099 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Moore, 954 F.2d 379, 381 (6th Cir. 1992)).\\n\\n 2. Impeachment of the Confidential Informant\\n\\n Shanklin first argues that disclosure was required so that he could impeach the CI. See\\ngenerally Appellant Br. at 14–19. To the extent Shanklin’s argument is made pursuant to either\\nthe Confrontation Clause or more general notions of fairness 1, we have previously held that\\nwhen “[t]he CI did not testify and none of the CI’s statements were offered for their truth at\\ntrial,” a defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him has not been violated. Doxey, 833\\nF.3d at 708; see also United States v. Sales, 247 F. App’x 730, 735 (6th Cir. 2007) (concluding\\n\\n 1Although Shanklin generally asserts that he should be permitted to probe the credibility of the CI,\\nShanklin mentions the Confrontation Clause specifically in only the Statement of the Issues in his appellate brief.\\nSee Appellant Br. at 3. Instead, Shanklin’s brief primarily asserts that disclosure was required for fairness reasons\\nonly.\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 8\\n\\n\\nthat, in the context of a defendant’s request for disclosure, the defendant’s “confrontation right\\nwas not implicated because the testimony was provided merely by way of background” (quoting\\nUnited States v. Cromer, 389 F.3d 662, 676 (6th Cir. 2004))). In such a case, we have reasoned\\nthat because the statements are not introduced for their truth, the CI’s reliability “would not make\\nany fact of consequence more or less likely.” Doxey, 833 F.3d at 708 (internal quotation marks\\nomitted).\\n\\n Shanklin has not identified any statements attributed to the CI that were introduced for\\ntheir truth by the government. Rather, a fair reading of the trial transcript indicates that\\ntestimony regarding the CI’s affidavit primarily served as a background explanation for the\\nofficers’ search of 2429 Elliott Avenue. See R. 116 (McKinney Test. at 160–61) (Page ID #791–\\n92) (stating that after receiving information from the “reliable confidential informant,”\\nMcKinney did some investigation into the house and set up surveillance of the residence); id. at\\n97 (Schardein Test.) (Page ID #728) (explaining that McKinney informed other officers that “he\\nhad information of a potential grow in the area of Elliott” and they subsequently set up\\nsurveillance of the home). To the extent that McKinney testified regarding the particular\\nstatements included in the affidavit, these statements were either in response to defense counsel’s\\ncross-examination or truthfully described the contents of the search warrant affidavit, which had\\nbeen introduced as Defense Exhibit 2. See id. at 199–200 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #830–31)\\n(explaining on cross-examination that the CI had been in the house 48 hours before Shanklin’s\\narrest); id. at 218–20 (Page ID #849–51) (stating on re-direct that he had not ordered the CI to\\nplant the gun and agreeing with the prosecutor that “[t]here’s nothing in [the affidavit] about the\\ninformant telling you, hey, he’s got a gun”); id. at 214 (Page ID #845) (introducing the search\\nwarrant as Defense Exhibit 2); R. 119 (Page ID #924) (listing the affidavit as Defense Exhibit 2).\\n\\n Additionally, and as explained in more detail below, because the CI’s statements did not\\nrelate to any evidence supporting the charged crime (possession of a firearm), the CI’s credibility\\nwas not a sufficient reason to order disclosure. See Sierra-Villegas, 774 F.3d at 1099–1100\\n(concluding that because the CI’s statements were not introduced for their truth and the\\ndefendant was being convicted for items found pursuant to a search warrant based upon the CI’s\\ntip, the fact that “the original source of investigators’ suspicions might have been untrustworthy\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 9\\n\\n\\nhas no bearing on the reliability of the evidence the investigators subsequently found”). Finally,\\nalthough it is not dispositive, our review of the record does show that Shanklin’s defense\\nattorney was able to introduce the theory that Shanklin had been framed, either by the police or\\nthe CI. See Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62 (concluding that one of the factors to consider for disclosure\\nis “the possible significance of the informer’s testimony”). For instance, on cross-examination,\\nMcKinney explained that although the affidavit stated that the CI had been in the house within\\n48 hours of the search of 2429 Elliott Avenue, McKinney could not confirm whether the CI was\\nalone in the house, what the CI had done while in the residence, and whether the CI had brought\\nanything into the house. R. 116 (McKinney Test. at 199–200) (Page ID #830–31). Additionally,\\ndefense counsel was able to question McKinney about whether the CI may have had an ulterior\\nmotive in reporting Shanklin or a personal grudge against Shanklin. Id. at 220 (McKinney Test.)\\n(Page ID #851). Defense counsel also called into question the credibility of narcotics informers\\ngenerally, asking McKinney whether CIs were sometimes “drug addicts” who often exchanged\\ninformation to “get charges eliminated.” Id. at 197–98 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #828–29).\\n\\n 3. Support of Shanklin’s Defense\\n\\n In addition to his credibility argument, Shanklin’s primary claim on appeal relies on the\\nviability of his claimed defense, namely that the gun was not his and the CI planted the firearm at\\n2429 Elliott Avenue in an effort to frame him. Appellant Br. at 18. Although this is a closer\\nissue than Shanklin’s credibility argument, we do not believe that the district court abused its\\ndiscretion in denying Shanklin’s motion to disclose in light of the specific facts of this case and\\nour deferential standard of review.\\n\\n As noted above, a defendant must point to some evidence supporting his motion for\\ndisclosure; “[m]ere conjecture” that the CI’s identity will assist in the defendant’s defense is\\ninsufficient. Sharp, 778 F.2d at 1187 (internal quotation marks omitted). Admittedly, our\\nprecedent has not specified what kind of evidence (and what amount) a defendant is required to\\nproduce before he successfully requests disclosure. Indeed, when a defendant’s primary\\nargument in favor of disclosure rests on the likelihood that the CI possesses necessary\\ninformation for the defendant’s sole defense, it is entirely possible that the majority of the\\ndefendant’s disclosure motion will rely on “speculation” about the CI’s testimony. On the other\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 10\\n\\n\\nhand, were we to permit defendants to require disclosure based on otherwise unsupported\\nhypotheses that have no basis in the facts of the case, we would severely limit the government’s\\nability to maintain the anonymity of reliable, and oftentimes necessary, CIs. In the context of\\nthis case, for instance, while a defendant is surely permitted to argue that a third party, including\\nthe CI, may have planted an item in the defendant’s residence, without some evidence creating a\\nplausible inference that the CI could have planted that evidence, the government should not be\\nrequired to disclose the CI’s identity. See Sierra-Villegas, 774 F.3d at 1100 (rejecting the\\ndefendant’s argument in favor of disclosure when “[a]lthough it is not impossible, it is\\nimplausible that the CI framed [the defendant] . . . or would testify to this effect”); Sharp, 778\\nF.2d at 1187 (concluding that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered disclosure\\nbased only on defense counsel’s unsworn representations and remanding for the district court to\\nconduct an in camera hearing to determine the relevancy of the CI’s testimony).\\n\\n In Shanklin’s case, we conclude that Shanklin has not made this required evidentiary\\nshowing. First, although Shanklin contends that at least seven individuals may have “received\\nmail at” 2429 Elliott Avenue, R. 42 (Def.’s Reply Br. at 1–2) (Page ID #109–10), Shanklin did\\nnot subpoena any of those individuals to question them regarding their relationship to the\\nresidence, whether they were confidential informants, or whether they had seen a weapon in the\\nresidence recently. This despite the fact that the evidence in the record identified many of these\\nindividuals by name. See, e.g., R. 132-1 (Gov’t Exs. at 66, 78) (Page ID #1050, 1062); R. 132-2\\n(Gov’t Exs. at 10–11, 21–23) (Page ID #1078–79, 1089–91). Similarly, Shanklin could have\\nprovided affidavits or testimony from friends or family, including his mother, regarding their\\nfamiliarity with the residence and whether they had ever seen Shanklin possess a weapon in or\\naround 2429 Elliott Avenue. Such evidence could have suggested that (1) Shanklin did not own\\na gun and (2) any weapon found in the residence had to have been left by another person. While\\nwe need not decide whether, standing alone, such evidence would have pushed the balance in\\nfavor of requiring disclosure, without providing even this modicum of evidence, Shanklin has\\nnot shown that the CI’s testimony would plausibly support his claim that he had been framed.2\\n\\n\\n\\n 2Although not dispositive, the plausibility of Shanklin’s argument is further diminished when we consider\\nthe fact that officers observed Shanklin leaving the residence before arresting him and confirmed that no one else\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 11\\n\\n\\n In addition to Shanklin’s lack of evidence, the CI in this case is more aptly described as a\\n“tipster,” rather than an active participant. See Doxey, 833 F.3d at 707 (“We usually deny\\ndisclosure when the informer was not a participant in the underlying alleged crime, and instead\\nwas a mere tipster or introducer.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). When the CI informed\\nMcKinney about Shanklin’s criminal activity, the CI stated only that he had seen marijuana\\nplants in 2429 Elliott Avenue and did not suggest that there was a firearm in the residence or that\\nShanklin possessed one. R. 29-2 (Search Warrant Affidavit at 2) (Page ID #79). After\\nsurveilling the house and confirming that there was a “strong odor of marijuana” from the home,\\nthe officers secured a search warrant to search for marijuana and related paraphernalia. Id. at\\n78–82. In addition to confirming the presence of numerous marijuana plants, as the CI had\\nclaimed, the officers also located the firearm at issue here. R. 132-3 (Seized Property Log) (Page\\nID #1114). We have previously held that when a CI does not participate in the underlying crime\\nand instead merely puts a fruitful search into motion, the government is not required to disclose\\nthe CI’s identity. United States v. Beals, 698 F.3d 248, 270 (6th Cir. 2012) (denying disclosure\\nwhen “the only role the confidential informant played was supplying reliable information to\\npolice that led to a fruitful search”); United States v. McManus, 560 F.2d 747, 751 (6th Cir.\\n1977) (concluding that no disclosure was required when “[t]he evidence upon which the\\nappellant was convicted was secured by government agents personally and was in no way\\ndependent on any informer” (internal quotation marks omitted)).\\n\\n Admittedly, this case is somewhat distinguishable from Beals and similar cases; although\\nthe CI did not provide any information suggesting that he/she had seen a weapon in the\\nresidence, Shanklin’s primary defense was that the CI was actively involved in the underlying\\ncrime of ensuring that Shanklin possessed the weapon. Cf. Beals, 698 F.3d at 270 (noting that\\ndisclosure was unnecessary because although the CI had told officers about various drugs and\\nweapons in the defendant’s garage, the CI was not involved in providing the defendant with any\\n\\n\\nentered the house. See R. 116 (Schardein Test. at 97–98) (Page ID #728–29) (explaining that they observed\\nShanklin exit the residence); id. at 131 (Evans Test.) (Page ID #762) (testifying that no one entered or exited the\\nresidence in the hour between when Shanklin left and when the search was conducted). Considering the small size\\nof the residence, the fact that Shanklin appeared to be residing in the house, and the visibility of the weapon on the\\nbedside table, Shanklin seemingly would have seen the weapon between the time the CI was in his house and the\\ntime Shanklin was arrested.\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 12\\n\\n\\nof the contraband). However, as noted above, Shanklin failed to provide any evidence\\nsupporting this claim. Furthermore, because the CI made no mention of the weapon in his\\nstatement to McKinney, there was no suggestion that the CI had any particular knowledge about\\nthe location of the weapon in the residence at 2429 Elliott Avenue or would have had the\\nopportunity to plant the firearm. Given the lack of evidence supporting Shanklin’s defense, as\\nwell as the limited statement by the CI concerning marijuana only, we conclude that the district\\ncourt did not abuse its discretion when it denied Shanklin’s motion for disclosure of the CI’s\\nidentity.\\n\\nB. Identification of Shanklin\\n\\n Shanklin next argues that the government failed to present sufficient evidence supporting\\nhis conviction and, therefore, the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal under\\nFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 29. Specifically, Shanklin contends that the\\ngovernment did not present any evidence showing that the individual in the courtroom, as well as\\nthe individual who was the focus of the witnesses’ testimony, was, in fact, Shanklin. Appellant\\nBr. at 26 (“[T]he Government failed to present any evidence that the man sitting accused in the\\ncourtroom was the same man that was arrested the day in question. No witness even attempted\\nto provide an in-court identification of the defendant.”). The government responds that because\\nsufficient circumstantial evidence supported a finding that Shanklin was the correct, named\\ndefendant, the district court correctly denied Shanklin’s Rule 29 motion. Appellee Br. at 15–18.\\n\\n “[T]his Court reviews de novo a district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion for judgment\\nof acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence.” United States v. Clay, 667 F.3d 689,\\n693 (6th Cir. 2012). “The Court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the\\ngovernment, and then determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential\\nelements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (emphasis added). In so doing, the court\\n“must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court, regardless of whether that evidence\\nwas admitted erroneously.” McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 131 (2010) (internal quotation\\nmarks omitted). The defendant thus “bears a very heavy burden.” Clay, 667 F.3d at 693\\n(quoting United States v. Davis, 397 F.3d 340, 344 (6th Cir. 2005)).\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 13\\n\\n\\n Shanklin has failed to meet this burden. “It is well-settled that an essential element that\\nthe government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the identification of a defendant as the\\nperson who perpetrated the crime charged.” United States v. Boyd, 447 F. App’x 684, 690 (6th\\nCir. 2011) (citing United States v. Green, 757 F.2d 116, 119 (7th Cir. 1985)). However, in order\\nto make that showing, the government need not present direct, in-court identifications of the\\ndefendant. Id. Rather, circumstantial evidence may support the identification of the defendant.\\nClay, 667 F.3d at 701–02. Such evidence may include the fact that the defendant has the same\\nname as the person charged in the indictment, the defendant’s willingness to enter into\\nevidentiary stipulations, defense counsel’s identification of the defendant at trial, and witnesses’\\nfailure to deny the defendant’s identity. Boyd, 447 F. App’x at 690 (collecting cases).\\n\\n Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude that\\nthere was sufficient circumstantial evidence to identify Shanklin as the perpetrator of the charged\\ncrime. First, Shanklin and the named defendant in the indictment shared the same name, a fact\\nthat was reinforced when the district court introduced the case to the jury. See R. 1 (Indictment\\nat 1) (Page ID #1); R. 116 (Trial Tr. at 9–10) (Page ID #640–41) (calling the case as “United\\nStates of American v. Damon Shanklin” and stating that “[i]n this case, the defendant,\\nMr. Shanklin, is charged with [the asserted crime]. Those are the charges against the defendant.\\nThe defendant has pled not guilty to those charges”). Second, defense counsel referred to\\nShanklin by name at least twice before the jury. During voir dire, defense counsel introduced\\nhimself to the jury and explained: “It’s my honor to represent Damon Shanklin, who is present\\nstanding next to my right.” R. 116 (Trial Tr. at 12) (Page ID #643). Next, during closing\\nargument, defense counsel stated: “[O]n behalf of my client, Mr. Shanklin, I’d like to thank you\\nfor your attention in this case.” R. 117 (Trial Tr. at 17) (Page ID #874). Similarly, defense\\ncounsel never objected when Schardein referred to Mr. Shanklin as “the defendant,” see R. 116\\n(Schardein Test. at 103) (Page ID #734) (explaining that he took a photograph of the house and\\n“took a photograph of the defendant and then photographed as items were called out”), and\\nwitnesses testified regarding their familiarity with Shanklin but did not suggest that the wrong\\ndefendant was on trial, see e.g., id. (Schardein Test. at 97) (Page ID #728); id. at 163–65\\n(McKinney Test.) (Page ID #794–96). Additionally, defense counsel did not raise Shanklin’s\\nidentity as an issue during trial or object when the government introduced photographs that\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 14\\n\\n\\nMcKinney confirmed depicted “Damon Shanklin.” Id. at 180 (McKinney Test.) (Page ID #811);\\nsee also R. 132-1 (Gov’t Exs. at 64–65) (Page ID #1048–49); id. at 68–69 (Page ID #1052–53).\\nFinally, both parties stipulated that “[t]he defendant, Damon Shanklin, and the United States of\\nAmerica stipulate and agree that prior to September 3rd, 2013, Damon Shanklin had been\\nconvicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”\\nR. 117 (Trial Tr. at 3) (Page ID #860). Read in the light most favorable to the government and\\nwith all reasonable inferences drawn in support of the jury’s verdict, there was sufficient\\nevidence to support the jury’s identification of Shanklin as the named defendant in the courtroom\\nand in the indictment. Consequently, the district court did not err in denying Shanklin’s Rule 29\\nmotion for lack of identification evidence.\\n\\nC. Application of USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)\\n\\n In his final argument, Shanklin asserts that the district court erred when it applied the\\nfour-level sentencing enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing a\\nfirearm in connection with another felony offense, namely the cultivation of marijuana. See R.\\n83 (PSR ¶ 16) (Page ID #367); R. 83-1 (PSR Addendum at 1–2) (Page ID #382–83).\\nSpecifically, Shanklin contends that the government failed to show the necessary nexus between\\nhis possession of a firearm and “another felony offense,” thus rendering his sentence\\nprocedurally unreasonable. Appellant Br. at 27–30. The government responds that under the\\ntext of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) and its application notes, supported by the “fortress theory,” there was\\nsufficient evidence showing that Shanklin’s possession of the gun facilitated the felony offense\\nof marijuana cultivation. Appellee Br. at 20–27.\\n\\n 1. Standard of Review & Applicable Law\\n\\n “Our review of procedural reasonableness includes determining whether the district court\\nproperly calculated a defendant’s Guidelines range.” United States v. Seymour, 739 F.3d 923,\\n929 (6th Cir. 2014). Although we generally review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo\\nwhen examining the district court’s guideline calculation, “[i]n the specific context of the\\n§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) firearm enhancement, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings for clear\\nerror and accord due deference to the district court’s determination that the firearm was used or\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 15\\n\\n\\npossessed in connection with the other felony, thus warranting the application of the . . .\\nenhancement.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Taylor, 648\\nF.3d 417, 432 (6th Cir. 2011)). This standard recognizes that when a defendant “challenges the\\ndistrict court’s determination that the firearm was used or possessed ‘in connection with’ the\\n[other felony offense]––i.e., that there was a nexus between the firearm and the felony––,” that\\ninquiry is necessarily “fact-specific” and thus better examined by the district court. Taylor, 648\\nF.3d at 431 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Ennenga, 263 F.3d 499,\\n502 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001), and explaining that the\\nfact-specific inquiry requires a more deferential standard of review); Buford, 532 U.S. at 64–66\\n(holding that appellate courts must review deferentially a district court’s conclusion that past\\nconvictions are “related” under the sentencing guidelines because it is largely a fact-intensive\\ninquiry that district courts are in a better position to examine). As always, “[t]he government\\nbears the burden of establishing the factors supporting this enhancement by a preponderance of\\nthe evidence.” Seymour, 739 F.3d at 929.\\n\\n Pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), a defendant’s offense level is increased by four levels if,\\namong other things, the defendant “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection\\nwith another felony offense.” The application note further explains that “another felony offense”\\nis “any federal, state, or local offense, other than the explosive or firearms possession or\\ntrafficking offense, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, regardless of\\nwhether a criminal charge was brought, or a conviction obtained.” Id. cmt. 14(C). Finally, per\\nthe application note, subsection (b)(6)(B) applies “if the firearm or ammunition facilitated, or\\nhad the potential of facilitating, another felony offense.” Id. cmt. 14(A).\\n\\n In the current case, the district court concluded that, pursuant to the “fortress theory,” the\\nfour-level enhancement properly applied to Shanklin. R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 32) (Page ID\\n#482). The fortress theory permits the application of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) “if it reasonably appears\\nthat the firearms found on the premises controlled or owned by a defendant and in his actual or\\nconstructive possession are to be used to protect the drugs or otherwise facilitate a drug\\ntransaction.” United States v. Angel, 576 F.3d 318, 321 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks\\nomitted). A narrow version of the fortress theory has been recognized in application note 14(B),\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 16\\n\\n\\nwhich explains that in the case of drug trafficking, the enhancement applies if the firearm was\\n“found in close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug paraphernalia.”\\nSeymour, 739 F.3d at 930 (quoting § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), cmt. 14(B)); United States v. Shields,\\n664 F.3d 1040, 1045 (6th Cir. 2011) (explaining that when the “other offense” is drug\\ntrafficking, close proximity between the firearm and the drug materials is sufficient to apply the\\nenhancement). In the case of a drug-trafficking offense, the enhancement “is warranted\\nbecause the presence of the firearm has the potential of facilitating another felony offense.”\\nUSSG § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(B).\\n\\n If the other felony offense does not implicate drug trafficking––for instance, if the\\ndefendant merely possessed a controlled substance––“the enhancement applies only if the\\ngovernment can establish that the firearm actually or potentially facilitated that offense.”\\nShields, 664 F.3d at 1045 (internal quotation marks omitted). “To allow otherwise would render\\nthe distinction in the Guidelines commentary between drug trafficking and other felonies\\nmeaningless.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In order to show that the firearm\\n“facilitated” the other felony offense under the fortress theory, reviewing courts consider the\\nproximity of the gun to the drugs, whether the defendant had an innocent explanation for the\\nweapon (such as personal protection), the type of firearm, and whether the firearm was loaded.\\nTaylor, 648 F.3d at 432–33. Additionally, courts examine the accessibility of the gun, Angel,\\n576 F.3d at 321, as well as the amount of drugs in proximity to the firearm, Seymour, 739 F.3d at\\n930–31. Ultimately, “§ 2K2.1 applies if the firearm had some emboldening role in a defendant’s\\nfelonious conduct.” Angel, 576 F.3d at 321 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration\\nincorporated).\\n\\n 2. Analysis\\n\\n The district court concluded that, under the fortress theory, Shanklin’s possession of the\\nfirearm was in furtherance of the other felony offense of “marijuana cultivation, trafficking\\nactivity.” R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 32) (Page ID #482). The district court based this finding on\\nthe plain language of § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(B), the amount of marijuana found in Shanklin’s\\nresidence, the small size of the house, the location of the firearm (in the sole bedroom in the\\nhouse and next to a digital scale and marijuana-growing magazine), and the fact that the firearm\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 17\\n\\n\\nwas loaded. Id. at 31–33 (Page ID #481–83). Reviewing the district court’s conclusion with the\\nrequired “due deference,” we agree that the four-level enhancement applied to Shanklin’s\\nguideline calculation.\\n\\n First, although it is not immediately clear from the record, it appears that the other felony\\noffense identified by the district court, “marijuana cultivation, trafficking activity,” would fall\\nunder the narrow version of the fortress theory recognized in comment 14(B) of the application\\nnotes. See Seymour, 739 F.3d at 930 (quoting § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), cmt. 14(B) and explaining that\\nwhen the other felony offense was drug trafficking, the enhancement applied if the gun was in\\n“‘close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug paraphernalia’”). Shanklin\\nhas not contested the district court’s determination that the other felony offense was “marijuana\\ncultivation, trafficking activity”; rather, Shanklin contends only that there was an insufficient\\nnexus between the gun possession and the other felony offense. Appellant Br. at 29–31.\\nMoreover, in the related state case, Shanklin was convicted of cultivating five or more plants in\\nviolation of Kentucky Revised Statute § 218A.1423. Section 218A.1423 explains that “[a]\\nperson is guilty of marijuana cultivation when he knowingly and unlawfully . . . cultivates . . .\\nmarijuana with the intent to sell or transfer it.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 218A.1423(1) (emphasis\\nadded); see also Appellee Br. at 6 n.2. Finally, as the district court noted, the gun was located in\\na residence which also housed “51 marijuana plants, digital scales, and literature about marijuana\\ngrowing.” R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 32) (Page ID #482). The amount of marijuana involved, as\\nwell as the listed drug paraphernalia, strongly suggests that Shanklin was engaged in “drug\\ntrafficking” pursuant to § 2K2.1 cmt. 14(B). Such a conclusion weighs in favor of applying the\\nfour-level enhancement. See Shields, 664 F.3d at 1046 (noting that because drug trafficking\\nusually involves ensuring that a transaction takes place, “it is easier to see how a firearm\\nfacilitates drug trafficking transactions[ ] than it is to see how a firearm facilitates the mere\\npossession of controlled substances”).\\n\\n Even if the other felony offense did not constitute “drug trafficking,” the quantity of\\nmarijuana plants found in Shanklin’s residence––51 plants capable of producing $51,000 worth\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 18\\n\\n\\nof marijuana each harvesting cycle3––is consistent with similar cases where we have applied the\\nfortress theory. See Angel, 576 F.3d at 319–20, 322 (applying the enhancement when the\\ndefendant had three firearms on the same property as fourteen marijuana plants, which were\\nlocated on the perimeter of the property, and the weapons were discovered in the upstairs\\nbedroom, which also contained 81.2 grams of processed marijuana and drug paraphernalia);\\nEnnenga, 263 F.3d at 501, 503–04 (applying the enhancement when the defendant had\\n34 marijuana plants in a separate room, an enhanced security system for the entire apartment,\\nand ammunition in the same room as a small amount of marijuana); id. at 504 (“When one is in\\npossession of a large and valuable stash of drugs, the desire to protect these illicit substances can\\nbe compelling.”); see also Shields, 664 F.3d at 1046 (noting that the more relevant inquiry is the\\namount of drugs in the defendant’s possession, since “carrying objects of great value is naturally\\nfacilitated by the security of being armed––whether the objects are intended for sale or not”); cf.\\nSeymour, 739 F.3d at 930 (“[W]e have resorted to the fortress theory more sparingly in cases that\\ninvolve simple possession of smaller amounts of drugs.”).\\n\\n In response, Shanklin asserts that, because the firearm was located in the bedroom and\\nwas therefore separate from the growing operation in another area of the house, there was no\\n“nexus” between his possession of the weapon and the cultivation of marijuana. Appellant Br. at\\n29–31. Although the “proximity” of the weapon to drugs is often a key factor in applying the\\nenhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), see United States v. Jackson, 877 F.3d 231, 239–40 (6th\\nCir. 2017), we have never established a bright-line test. Indeed, in United States v. Taylor, we\\naffirmed the application of the enhancement when the defendant was trafficking drugs from his\\nhouse and the loaded firearms were found on the floor of a separate room in the house. Taylor,\\n648 F.3d at 432–33. Additionally, the firearm at issue in this case was loaded and located on a\\nnightstand in the sole bedroom of a very small house controlled only by Shanklin. Id. at 433\\n(noting that the type of firearm and whether it was loaded were factors in applying the fortress\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3The above amount is based on McKinney’s testimony at trial that (1) Shanklin’s residence contained\\n51 marijuana plants; (2) each plant produced five to eight ounces of marijuana per harvest cycle; and (3) one ounce\\nof marijuana sold for approximately $200 or $250. R. 116 (McKinney Test. at 183–85) (Page ID #814–16).\\n\\f No. 18-5289 United States v. Shanklin Page 19\\n\\n\\ntheory); Angel, 576 F.3d at 321 (explaining that courts examine the accessibility of the gun).4\\nFinally, drug paraphernalia related to marijuana cultivation was located throughout the house,\\nfurther suggesting that Shanklin intended to fortify the entire residence in an effort to support\\nand protect his marijuana cultivation. See R. 132-3 (Seized Property Log) (Page ID #1114)\\n(explaining that three marijuana plants were found in the front living room closet and digital\\nscales were located on the living room coffee table); R. 116 (Reccius Test. at 141) (Page ID\\n#772) (stating that the bedroom was off of the living room). Shanklin’s case is thus\\ndistinguishable from Jackson, where the defendant kept his weapon “in a property down the\\nblock” from where the defendant conducted drug transactions, thereby destroying any “offensive\\nor defensive use to him.” Jackson, 877 F.3d at 240; cf. United States v. Heighton, 272 F. App’x\\n469, 472 (6th Cir. 2008) (applying the enhancement even though the firearms were found in a\\nseparate section of the house because “[t]he arsenal of unsecured, loaded weapons scattered\\nabout the premises, and the attendant video surveillance system, served to provide security for\\nthe manufacture and/or sale of narcotics on Heighton’s property”). Given the deferential nature\\nof our review, the number and value of the marijuana plants at 2429 Elliott Avenue, the small\\nsize of the residence, the location of the loaded weapon in the bedroom, and the presence of drug\\nparaphernalia throughout the house, a preponderance of the evidence supported application of\\nthe four-level enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). We thus affirm Shanklin’s sentence.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM Shanklin’s conviction and sentence.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4Contrary to Shanklin’s contention on appeal, a preponderance of the evidence supported the district\\ncourt’s conclusion that Shanklin was the sole resident of 2429 Elliott Avenue. See R. 102 (Sent’g Hr’g Tr. at 32)\\n(Page ID #482). There were various letters and bills addressed to Shanklin at the address, Shanklin’s personal items\\nsuch as photographs, medical prescriptions, and car registrations were found in the house, Shanklin gave the officers\\na key to the house following his arrest, Shanklin was seen exiting the house an hour before the gun was recovered,\\nand there was only one bedroom in the small residence.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2089,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8444003,"string":"8,444,003"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Brian D. WILLIAMS v. United States"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Williams v. United States"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-24"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 17-3211"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415438/\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444003/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Brian D. WILLIAMS v. United States\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-24\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Brian D. WILLIAMS v. United States\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-24\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2090,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4623789,"string":"4,623,789"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mohamed BELAKHDHAR, Defendant-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Mohamed Belakhdhar"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-28"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1884"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Cook, McKEAGUE, White\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"COOK, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0103p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-1884\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n MOHAMED BELAKHDHAR, │\\n Defendant-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:18-cr-20072-2—Arthur J. Tarnow, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 28, 2019\\n\\n Before: COOK, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Andrew Goetz, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan,\\nfor Appellant. Joseph A. Niskar, Pontiac, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n COOK, Circuit Judge. After observing Mohamed Belakhdhar driving in tandem with a\\ncar suspected of transporting heroin from Chicago to Detroit, Drug Enforcement Administration\\nagents directed local police to stop his car. That stop ultimately led investigators to discover two\\nkilograms of heroin hidden in Belakhdhar’s trunk. Before trial, Belakhdhar asked the district\\ncourt to suppress the drug evidence, asserting that the police violated his Fourth Amendment\\nrights in stopping his vehicle. Although the district court agreed, we see things differently.\\n\\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 2\\n\\n\\n I.\\n\\n On a cold, windy, and drizzly morning in January 2018, Drug Enforcement\\nAdministration (DEA) agents laid in wait along a stretch of Interstate 94, looking for a black\\nToyota Camry. The previous evening, agents had arranged for a known confidential informant\\nto purchase heroin from a supplier named Henry Soto. Soto agreed to drive the shipment from\\nChicago to Detroit the following day and meet the informant at a casino downtown. The\\ninformant alerted DEA agents that Soto would probably drive his Camry, stashing the drugs in a\\nlarge bucket in his car. That same evening, federal agents obtained a “ping” warrant permitting\\nthem to track the location of Soto’s cell phone.\\n\\n Morning arrived. Agents spotted Soto’s Camry on the busy highway, matching it to the\\nlocation of Soto’s cell phone. Their confidential informant called Soto, confirming that Soto had\\nalready hit the road. As agents watched Soto’s vehicle, they also noticed a grey Toyota RAV4\\nbehind it, driving at approximately the same speed as the Camry and changing lanes at the same\\ntime. Like the Camry, the RAV4 bore Illinois plates, though the RAV4’s were temporary. After\\nobserving all this, the agents concluded that the cars were traveling “in tandem”—a common\\npractice of large-scale drug traffickers gathering counter-surveillance or looking to thwart law\\nenforcement during the trip—and asked Michigan State Police to pull over both cars.\\n\\n While one Michigan trooper stopped the Camry, another identified the RAV4, driving up\\nalongside it for a few minutes to “make sure it was the correct vehicle.” R. 29, PageID 123. As\\nthe second trooper pulled up next to the RAV4, the car slowed to fifty-three miles per hour, two\\nmiles under the freeway’s minimum speed limit. Satisfied that he had the right car, the trooper\\npositioned himself behind the RAV4, turned on his lights, and effectuated a stop.\\n\\n The RAV4’s driver, Mohamed Belakhdhar, and his passenger provided the police with\\ntheir identification, explaining that they were driving to visit someone in the hospital.\\nBelakhdhar consented to a search of the car, and, after failing to find any contraband, the trooper\\nlet them go.\\n\\n But the DEA agents didn’t stop surveilling the vehicle. They investigated Belakhdhar’s\\nidentification information, determined that Belakhdhar lacked legal immigration status, and\\n\\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 3\\n\\n\\nrequested that a Border Patrol agent stop the car again. During that second stop, another agent\\nwalked a drug dog around the vehicle. The dog alerted to the back bumper. Opening the trunk,\\nthe agents discovered two kilograms of heroin hidden inside of a microwave, and arrested\\nBelakhdhar.\\n\\n Charged with conspiracy for possession and intent to distribute heroin under 28 U.S.C.\\n§§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A), Belakhdhar contended that the district court should\\nsuppress the drug evidence as fruit of a poisoned investigation. See Wong Sun v. United States,\\n371 U.S. 471, 484–85 (1963). The state troopers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity\\nand probable cause that he violated a state traffic law, he argued, and therefore violated the\\nFourth Amendment by stopping his vehicle the first time. Agreeing with both points, the district\\ncourt suppressed the evidence. The government appealed, arguing that both stops were legal.\\nBelakhdhar focuses only on the legality of the first stop, seemingly agreeing that the second stop\\npassed muster as long as the first one did. We therefore limit our analysis accordingly.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n When a district court grants a motion to suppress, we review its legal conclusions de\\nnovo and its factual findings for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most likely to\\nsupport the district court’s decision—that is, in the defendant’s favor. United States v. Bailey,\\n302 F.3d 652, 656 (6th Cir. 2002).\\n\\n Establishing reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), involves two\\nsteps, the first of which requires the government to articulate specific facts justifying the initial\\ndetention. United States v. Torres-Ramos, 536 F.3d 542, 551 (6th Cir. 2008). The government\\nhere premises its stop on three facts: first, a known confidential informant’s tip that a black\\nCamry would be carrying heroin from Chicago to Detroit that morning; second, DEA agents’\\nidentification of that car on the highway connecting the two cities; and third, DEA agents\\nnoticing a grey RAV4 with temporary tags driving a few car lengths behind the Camry for an\\nunspecified amount of time, changing lanes when the Camry changed lanes.\\n\\n As an initial matter, this court must determine whether it is reviewing a factual or legal\\nconclusion. What ground did the district court’s opinion cover? Did it determine that the\\n\\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 4\\n\\n\\ngovernment’s testimony did not establish that the Camry and RAV4 were driving in tandem, or\\ndid it conclude that even if the two cars were driving in tandem, that alone could not establish\\nreasonable suspicion of drug activity?\\n\\n The answer is not clear. In support of the first interpretation, the district court\\nspecifically noted that DEA agents observed Belakhdhar’s vehicle changing lanes with the\\nCamry “for an unspecified period of time,” and that the government’s assertion that the vehicles\\nwere traveling in tandem for twenty minutes had no support in the record. R. 28, PageID 87. It\\nalso stated that “Belakhdhar’s ‘mere propinquity’ to Henry Soto on I-94 ‘does not, without more,\\ngive rise to probable cause’ or reasonable suspicion.” Id. (quoting Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S.\\n85, 91 (1979)). On the other hand, the district court’s clear conclusion that “tandem driving with\\na vehicle suspected of drug activity, alone, is an insufficient basis for reasonable suspicion,” R.\\n28, PageID 88, suggests a legal determination.\\n\\n The parties have presented the issue purely as a legal one. We therefore confine our\\nopinion to addressing only whether driving in tandem with a vehicle suspected of drug\\ntrafficking satisfies reasonable suspicion. We leave for another day the question of what\\nquantum of evidence supports finding that two cars are driving in tandem.\\n\\n Reviewing courts “must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of each case to see\\nwhether the detaining officer has a ‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting legal\\nwrongdoing.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (quoting United States v.\\nCortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417–18 (1981)). Here, the government possessed strong evidence that a\\ndrug dealer operated one car and knew that large-scale traffickers routinely use multiple cars to\\ntransport drugs. With sufficient evidence of tandem driving, connecting the dots would lead\\nDEA agents to reasonably conclude that Belakhdhar’s conduct betrayed criminal activity. See\\nTerry, 392 U.S. at 30. Though individual datapoints may portray entirely innocent conduct—\\nsuch as tandem driving to save on gas, as the district court suggested at the suppression hearing,\\nsee R. 29, PageID 134–35, or following a friend through a strange neighborhood—our cases\\nteach that the overall scatterplot may give rise to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Smith,\\n263 F.3d 571, 588 (6th Cir. 2001). Reasonable suspicion, after all, does not present a\\nparticularly high bar. Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014).\\n\\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 5\\n\\n\\n Belakhdhar and the district court rely on one of our unpublished cases, United States v.\\nCarrillo–Alvardo, 558 F. App’x 536 (6th Cir. 2014), as establishing that driving in tandem with\\na car suspected of criminal activity cannot alone satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirement.\\nBut that case reinforces the exact opposite proposition. Id. at 539–44. There, a known informant\\ntipped police to a tractor-trailer’s imminent delivery of a large marijuana shipment to an auto\\nshop. Id. at 539–40, 543. The officers already knew that the auto shop functioned as a drug\\ndistribution hub. Id. Sure enough, the specified trailer arrived—late in the day, weather wintry.\\nId. Workers unloaded the cargo, and a convoy of vans soon left the shop, dividing into two\\ngroups, each set driving in tandem. Id. Knowing that drug dealers often divvy up large loads\\ninto smaller ones at distribution hubs, and putting two (the presence of a truck carrying drugs)\\nand two (the cohort of vans working in concert) together, the officers acted—stopping both\\nconvoys and ultimately seizing over two thousand kilograms of marijuana. Id. Those facts, we\\ndecided, “more than fulfill[ed] the reasonable suspicion requirement.” Id. at 543; see also\\nUnited States v. Rodriguez–Rodriguez, 550 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Sufficient\\nevidence that two vehicles are driving in tandem plus evidence that one vehicle contains\\ncontraband can provide probable cause sufficient to support arresting the driver of the other\\nvehicle.”).\\n\\n Assuming sufficient evidence of tandem driving, this case would fundamentally present\\nthe same narrative: DEA agents identify one vehicle likely carrying drugs and suspect that a\\nsecond vehicle is working in concert with the first. See also United States v. Zamudio-Carrillo,\\n499 F.3d 1206, 1208–10 (10th Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to pull over a second car where\\nan officer observed two vehicles with consecutively numbered specialty license plates driving a\\nquarter mile apart along a Kansas interstate highway, the first of which contained a false floor\\ncompartment). But see United States v. Robert L., 874 F.2d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 1989) (stop\\npremised on tandem driving was improper where officers observed the cars driving for only\\napproximately 1 kilometer, or 0.67 miles). Thus, as a matter of law, to the extent the district\\ncourt meant to convey that tandem driving with a vehicle suspected of drug activity cannot,\\nalone, support reasonable suspicion, it erred.\\n\\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 6\\n\\n\\n III.\\n\\n We VACATE the district court’s decision and REMAND for proceedings consistent with\\nthis opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4401042/\", \"author_raw\": \"COOK, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"COOK"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MCKEAGUE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"WHITE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"McKEAGUE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623789/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mohamed BELAKHDHAR, Defendant-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-28\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0103p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\n │\n > No. 18-1884\n v. │\n │\n │\n MOHAMED BELAKHDHAR, │\n Defendant-Appellee. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\n No. 2:18-cr-20072-2—Arthur J. Tarnow, District Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: May 28, 2019\n\n Before: COOK, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: Andrew Goetz, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan,\nfor Appellant. Joseph A. Niskar, Pontiac, Michigan, for Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n COOK, Circuit Judge. After observing Mohamed Belakhdhar driving in tandem with a\ncar suspected of transporting heroin from Chicago to Detroit, Drug Enforcement Administration\nagents directed local police to stop his car. That stop ultimately led investigators to discover two\nkilograms of heroin hidden in Belakhdhar’s trunk. Before trial, Belakhdhar asked the district\ncourt to suppress the drug evidence, asserting that the police violated his Fourth Amendment\nrights in stopping his vehicle. Although the district court agreed, we see things differently.\n\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 2\n\n\n I.\n\n On a cold, windy, and drizzly morning in January 2018, Drug Enforcement\nAdministration (DEA) agents laid in wait along a stretch of Interstate 94, looking for a black\nToyota Camry. The previous evening, agents had arranged for a known confidential informant\nto purchase heroin from a supplier named Henry Soto. Soto agreed to drive the shipment from\nChicago to Detroit the following day and meet the informant at a casino downtown. The\ninformant alerted DEA agents that Soto would probably drive his Camry, stashing the drugs in a\nlarge bucket in his car. That same evening, federal agents obtained a “ping” warrant permitting\nthem to track the location of Soto’s cell phone.\n\n Morning arrived. Agents spotted Soto’s Camry on the busy highway, matching it to the\nlocation of Soto’s cell phone. Their confidential informant called Soto, confirming that Soto had\nalready hit the road. As agents watched Soto’s vehicle, they also noticed a grey Toyota RAV4\nbehind it, driving at approximately the same speed as the Camry and changing lanes at the same\ntime. Like the Camry, the RAV4 bore Illinois plates, though the RAV4’s were temporary. After\nobserving all this, the agents concluded that the cars were traveling “in tandem”—a common\npractice of large-scale drug traffickers gathering counter-surveillance or looking to thwart law\nenforcement during the trip—and asked Michigan State Police to pull over both cars.\n\n While one Michigan trooper stopped the Camry, another identified the RAV4, driving up\nalongside it for a few minutes to “make sure it was the correct vehicle.” R. 29, PageID 123. As\nthe second trooper pulled up next to the RAV4, the car slowed to fifty-three miles per hour, two\nmiles under the freeway’s minimum speed limit. Satisfied that he had the right car, the trooper\npositioned himself behind the RAV4, turned on his lights, and effectuated a stop.\n\n The RAV4’s driver, Mohamed Belakhdhar, and his passenger provided the police with\ntheir identification, explaining that they were driving to visit someone in the hospital.\nBelakhdhar consented to a search of the car, and, after failing to find any contraband, the trooper\nlet them go.\n\n But the DEA agents didn’t stop surveilling the vehicle. They investigated Belakhdhar’s\nidentification information, determined that Belakhdhar lacked legal immigration status, and\n\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 3\n\n\nrequested that a Border Patrol agent stop the car again. During that second stop, another agent\nwalked a drug dog around the vehicle. The dog alerted to the back bumper. Opening the trunk,\nthe agents discovered two kilograms of heroin hidden inside of a microwave, and arrested\nBelakhdhar.\n\n Charged with conspiracy for possession and intent to distribute heroin under 28 U.S.C.\n§§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A), Belakhdhar contended that the district court should\nsuppress the drug evidence as fruit of a poisoned investigation. See Wong Sun v. United States,\n371 U.S. 471, 484–85 (1963). The state troopers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity\nand probable cause that he violated a state traffic law, he argued, and therefore violated the\nFourth Amendment by stopping his vehicle the first time. Agreeing with both points, the district\ncourt suppressed the evidence. The government appealed, arguing that both stops were legal.\nBelakhdhar focuses only on the legality of the first stop, seemingly agreeing that the second stop\npassed muster as long as the first one did. We therefore limit our analysis accordingly.\n\n II.\n\n When a district court grants a motion to suppress, we review its legal conclusions de\nnovo and its factual findings for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most likely to\nsupport the district court’s decision—that is, in the defendant’s favor. United States v. Bailey,\n302 F.3d 652, 656 (6th Cir. 2002).\n\n Establishing reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), involves two\nsteps, the first of which requires the government to articulate specific facts justifying the initial\ndetention. United States v. Torres-Ramos, 536 F.3d 542, 551 (6th Cir. 2008). The government\nhere premises its stop on three facts: first, a known confidential informant’s tip that a black\nCamry would be carrying heroin from Chicago to Detroit that morning; second, DEA agents’\nidentification of that car on the highway connecting the two cities; and third, DEA agents\nnoticing a grey RAV4 with temporary tags driving a few car lengths behind the Camry for an\nunspecified amount of time, changing lanes when the Camry changed lanes.\n\n As an initial matter, this court must determine whether it is reviewing a factual or legal\nconclusion. What ground did the district court’s opinion cover? Did it determine that the\n\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 4\n\n\ngovernment’s testimony did not establish that the Camry and RAV4 were driving in tandem, or\ndid it conclude that even if the two cars were driving in tandem, that alone could not establish\nreasonable suspicion of drug activity?\n\n The answer is not clear. In support of the first interpretation, the district court\nspecifically noted that DEA agents observed Belakhdhar’s vehicle changing lanes with the\nCamry “for an unspecified period of time,” and that the government’s assertion that the vehicles\nwere traveling in tandem for twenty minutes had no support in the record. R. 28, PageID 87. It\nalso stated that “Belakhdhar’s ‘mere propinquity’ to Henry Soto on I-94 ‘does not, without more,\ngive rise to probable cause’ or reasonable suspicion.” Id. (quoting Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S.\n85, 91 (1979)). On the other hand, the district court’s clear conclusion that “tandem driving with\na vehicle suspected of drug activity, alone, is an insufficient basis for reasonable suspicion,” R.\n28, PageID 88, suggests a legal determination.\n\n The parties have presented the issue purely as a legal one. We therefore confine our\nopinion to addressing only whether driving in tandem with a vehicle suspected of drug\ntrafficking satisfies reasonable suspicion. We leave for another day the question of what\nquantum of evidence supports finding that two cars are driving in tandem.\n\n Reviewing courts “must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of each case to see\nwhether the detaining officer has a ‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting legal\nwrongdoing.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (quoting United States v.\nCortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417–18 (1981)). Here, the government possessed strong evidence that a\ndrug dealer operated one car and knew that large-scale traffickers routinely use multiple cars to\ntransport drugs. With sufficient evidence of tandem driving, connecting the dots would lead\nDEA agents to reasonably conclude that Belakhdhar’s conduct betrayed criminal activity. See\nTerry, 392 U.S. at 30. Though individual datapoints may portray entirely innocent conduct—\nsuch as tandem driving to save on gas, as the district court suggested at the suppression hearing,\nsee R. 29, PageID 134–35, or following a friend through a strange neighborhood—our cases\nteach that the overall scatterplot may give rise to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Smith,\n263 F.3d 571, 588 (6th Cir. 2001). Reasonable suspicion, after all, does not present a\nparticularly high bar. Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014).\n\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 5\n\n\n Belakhdhar and the district court rely on one of our unpublished cases, United States v.\nCarrillo–Alvardo, 558 F. App’x 536 (6th Cir. 2014), as establishing that driving in tandem with\na car suspected of criminal activity cannot alone satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirement.\nBut that case reinforces the exact opposite proposition. Id. at 539–44. There, a known informant\ntipped police to a tractor-trailer’s imminent delivery of a large marijuana shipment to an auto\nshop. Id. at 539–40, 543. The officers already knew that the auto shop functioned as a drug\ndistribution hub. Id. Sure enough, the specified trailer arrived—late in the day, weather wintry.\nId. Workers unloaded the cargo, and a convoy of vans soon left the shop, dividing into two\ngroups, each set driving in tandem. Id. Knowing that drug dealers often divvy up large loads\ninto smaller ones at distribution hubs, and putting two (the presence of a truck carrying drugs)\nand two (the cohort of vans working in concert) together, the officers acted—stopping both\nconvoys and ultimately seizing over two thousand kilograms of marijuana. Id. Those facts, we\ndecided, “more than fulfill[ed] the reasonable suspicion requirement.” Id. at 543; see also\nUnited States v. Rodriguez–Rodriguez, 550 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Sufficient\nevidence that two vehicles are driving in tandem plus evidence that one vehicle contains\ncontraband can provide probable cause sufficient to support arresting the driver of the other\nvehicle.”).\n\n Assuming sufficient evidence of tandem driving, this case would fundamentally present\nthe same narrative: DEA agents identify one vehicle likely carrying drugs and suspect that a\nsecond vehicle is working in concert with the first. See also United States v. Zamudio-Carrillo,\n499 F.3d 1206, 1208–10 (10th Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to pull over a second car where\nan officer observed two vehicles with consecutively numbered specialty license plates driving a\nquarter mile apart along a Kansas interstate highway, the first of which contained a false floor\ncompartment). But see United States v. Robert L., 874 F.2d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 1989) (stop\npremised on tandem driving was improper where officers observed the cars driving for only\napproximately 1 kilometer, or 0.67 miles). Thus, as a matter of law, to the extent the district\ncourt meant to convey that tandem driving with a vehicle suspected of drug activity cannot,\nalone, support reasonable suspicion, it erred.\n\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 6\n\n\n III.\n\n We VACATE the district court’s decision and REMAND for proceedings consistent with\nthis opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mohamed BELAKHDHAR, Defendant-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-28\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0103p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-1884\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n MOHAMED BELAKHDHAR, │\\n Defendant-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:18-cr-20072-2—Arthur J. Tarnow, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 28, 2019\\n\\n Before: COOK, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Andrew Goetz, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan,\\nfor Appellant. Joseph A. Niskar, Pontiac, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n COOK, Circuit Judge. After observing Mohamed Belakhdhar driving in tandem with a\\ncar suspected of transporting heroin from Chicago to Detroit, Drug Enforcement Administration\\nagents directed local police to stop his car. That stop ultimately led investigators to discover two\\nkilograms of heroin hidden in Belakhdhar’s trunk. Before trial, Belakhdhar asked the district\\ncourt to suppress the drug evidence, asserting that the police violated his Fourth Amendment\\nrights in stopping his vehicle. Although the district court agreed, we see things differently.\\n\\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 2\\n\\n\\n I.\\n\\n On a cold, windy, and drizzly morning in January 2018, Drug Enforcement\\nAdministration (DEA) agents laid in wait along a stretch of Interstate 94, looking for a black\\nToyota Camry. The previous evening, agents had arranged for a known confidential informant\\nto purchase heroin from a supplier named Henry Soto. Soto agreed to drive the shipment from\\nChicago to Detroit the following day and meet the informant at a casino downtown. The\\ninformant alerted DEA agents that Soto would probably drive his Camry, stashing the drugs in a\\nlarge bucket in his car. That same evening, federal agents obtained a “ping” warrant permitting\\nthem to track the location of Soto’s cell phone.\\n\\n Morning arrived. Agents spotted Soto’s Camry on the busy highway, matching it to the\\nlocation of Soto’s cell phone. Their confidential informant called Soto, confirming that Soto had\\nalready hit the road. As agents watched Soto’s vehicle, they also noticed a grey Toyota RAV4\\nbehind it, driving at approximately the same speed as the Camry and changing lanes at the same\\ntime. Like the Camry, the RAV4 bore Illinois plates, though the RAV4’s were temporary. After\\nobserving all this, the agents concluded that the cars were traveling “in tandem”—a common\\npractice of large-scale drug traffickers gathering counter-surveillance or looking to thwart law\\nenforcement during the trip—and asked Michigan State Police to pull over both cars.\\n\\n While one Michigan trooper stopped the Camry, another identified the RAV4, driving up\\nalongside it for a few minutes to “make sure it was the correct vehicle.” R. 29, PageID 123. As\\nthe second trooper pulled up next to the RAV4, the car slowed to fifty-three miles per hour, two\\nmiles under the freeway’s minimum speed limit. Satisfied that he had the right car, the trooper\\npositioned himself behind the RAV4, turned on his lights, and effectuated a stop.\\n\\n The RAV4’s driver, Mohamed Belakhdhar, and his passenger provided the police with\\ntheir identification, explaining that they were driving to visit someone in the hospital.\\nBelakhdhar consented to a search of the car, and, after failing to find any contraband, the trooper\\nlet them go.\\n\\n But the DEA agents didn’t stop surveilling the vehicle. They investigated Belakhdhar’s\\nidentification information, determined that Belakhdhar lacked legal immigration status, and\\n\\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 3\\n\\n\\nrequested that a Border Patrol agent stop the car again. During that second stop, another agent\\nwalked a drug dog around the vehicle. The dog alerted to the back bumper. Opening the trunk,\\nthe agents discovered two kilograms of heroin hidden inside of a microwave, and arrested\\nBelakhdhar.\\n\\n Charged with conspiracy for possession and intent to distribute heroin under 28 U.S.C.\\n§§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A), Belakhdhar contended that the district court should\\nsuppress the drug evidence as fruit of a poisoned investigation. See Wong Sun v. United States,\\n371 U.S. 471, 484–85 (1963). The state troopers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity\\nand probable cause that he violated a state traffic law, he argued, and therefore violated the\\nFourth Amendment by stopping his vehicle the first time. Agreeing with both points, the district\\ncourt suppressed the evidence. The government appealed, arguing that both stops were legal.\\nBelakhdhar focuses only on the legality of the first stop, seemingly agreeing that the second stop\\npassed muster as long as the first one did. We therefore limit our analysis accordingly.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n When a district court grants a motion to suppress, we review its legal conclusions de\\nnovo and its factual findings for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most likely to\\nsupport the district court’s decision—that is, in the defendant’s favor. United States v. Bailey,\\n302 F.3d 652, 656 (6th Cir. 2002).\\n\\n Establishing reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), involves two\\nsteps, the first of which requires the government to articulate specific facts justifying the initial\\ndetention. United States v. Torres-Ramos, 536 F.3d 542, 551 (6th Cir. 2008). The government\\nhere premises its stop on three facts: first, a known confidential informant’s tip that a black\\nCamry would be carrying heroin from Chicago to Detroit that morning; second, DEA agents’\\nidentification of that car on the highway connecting the two cities; and third, DEA agents\\nnoticing a grey RAV4 with temporary tags driving a few car lengths behind the Camry for an\\nunspecified amount of time, changing lanes when the Camry changed lanes.\\n\\n As an initial matter, this court must determine whether it is reviewing a factual or legal\\nconclusion. What ground did the district court’s opinion cover? Did it determine that the\\n\\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 4\\n\\n\\ngovernment’s testimony did not establish that the Camry and RAV4 were driving in tandem, or\\ndid it conclude that even if the two cars were driving in tandem, that alone could not establish\\nreasonable suspicion of drug activity?\\n\\n The answer is not clear. In support of the first interpretation, the district court\\nspecifically noted that DEA agents observed Belakhdhar’s vehicle changing lanes with the\\nCamry “for an unspecified period of time,” and that the government’s assertion that the vehicles\\nwere traveling in tandem for twenty minutes had no support in the record. R. 28, PageID 87. It\\nalso stated that “Belakhdhar’s ‘mere propinquity’ to Henry Soto on I-94 ‘does not, without more,\\ngive rise to probable cause’ or reasonable suspicion.” Id. (quoting Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S.\\n85, 91 (1979)). On the other hand, the district court’s clear conclusion that “tandem driving with\\na vehicle suspected of drug activity, alone, is an insufficient basis for reasonable suspicion,” R.\\n28, PageID 88, suggests a legal determination.\\n\\n The parties have presented the issue purely as a legal one. We therefore confine our\\nopinion to addressing only whether driving in tandem with a vehicle suspected of drug\\ntrafficking satisfies reasonable suspicion. We leave for another day the question of what\\nquantum of evidence supports finding that two cars are driving in tandem.\\n\\n Reviewing courts “must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of each case to see\\nwhether the detaining officer has a ‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting legal\\nwrongdoing.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (quoting United States v.\\nCortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417–18 (1981)). Here, the government possessed strong evidence that a\\ndrug dealer operated one car and knew that large-scale traffickers routinely use multiple cars to\\ntransport drugs. With sufficient evidence of tandem driving, connecting the dots would lead\\nDEA agents to reasonably conclude that Belakhdhar’s conduct betrayed criminal activity. See\\nTerry, 392 U.S. at 30. Though individual datapoints may portray entirely innocent conduct—\\nsuch as tandem driving to save on gas, as the district court suggested at the suppression hearing,\\nsee R. 29, PageID 134–35, or following a friend through a strange neighborhood—our cases\\nteach that the overall scatterplot may give rise to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Smith,\\n263 F.3d 571, 588 (6th Cir. 2001). Reasonable suspicion, after all, does not present a\\nparticularly high bar. Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014).\\n\\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 5\\n\\n\\n Belakhdhar and the district court rely on one of our unpublished cases, United States v.\\nCarrillo–Alvardo, 558 F. App’x 536 (6th Cir. 2014), as establishing that driving in tandem with\\na car suspected of criminal activity cannot alone satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirement.\\nBut that case reinforces the exact opposite proposition. Id. at 539–44. There, a known informant\\ntipped police to a tractor-trailer’s imminent delivery of a large marijuana shipment to an auto\\nshop. Id. at 539–40, 543. The officers already knew that the auto shop functioned as a drug\\ndistribution hub. Id. Sure enough, the specified trailer arrived—late in the day, weather wintry.\\nId. Workers unloaded the cargo, and a convoy of vans soon left the shop, dividing into two\\ngroups, each set driving in tandem. Id. Knowing that drug dealers often divvy up large loads\\ninto smaller ones at distribution hubs, and putting two (the presence of a truck carrying drugs)\\nand two (the cohort of vans working in concert) together, the officers acted—stopping both\\nconvoys and ultimately seizing over two thousand kilograms of marijuana. Id. Those facts, we\\ndecided, “more than fulfill[ed] the reasonable suspicion requirement.” Id. at 543; see also\\nUnited States v. Rodriguez–Rodriguez, 550 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Sufficient\\nevidence that two vehicles are driving in tandem plus evidence that one vehicle contains\\ncontraband can provide probable cause sufficient to support arresting the driver of the other\\nvehicle.”).\\n\\n Assuming sufficient evidence of tandem driving, this case would fundamentally present\\nthe same narrative: DEA agents identify one vehicle likely carrying drugs and suspect that a\\nsecond vehicle is working in concert with the first. See also United States v. Zamudio-Carrillo,\\n499 F.3d 1206, 1208–10 (10th Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to pull over a second car where\\nan officer observed two vehicles with consecutively numbered specialty license plates driving a\\nquarter mile apart along a Kansas interstate highway, the first of which contained a false floor\\ncompartment). But see United States v. Robert L., 874 F.2d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 1989) (stop\\npremised on tandem driving was improper where officers observed the cars driving for only\\napproximately 1 kilometer, or 0.67 miles). Thus, as a matter of law, to the extent the district\\ncourt meant to convey that tandem driving with a vehicle suspected of drug activity cannot,\\nalone, support reasonable suspicion, it erred.\\n\\f No. 18-1884 United States v. Belakhdhar Page 6\\n\\n\\n III.\\n\\n We VACATE the district court’s decision and REMAND for proceedings consistent with\\nthis opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2091,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4623790,"string":"4,623,790"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"In RE: FIFTH THIRD EARLY ACCESS CASH ADVANCE LITIGATION. Lori Laskaris; Daniel Laskaris; Jessie McQuillen; Brian C. Harrison ; Janet Fyock; William R. Klopfenstein; Adam McKinney ; Donald E. Adanich; Lyn A. Adanich; Scott D. Little ; Diana Horn, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Fifth Third Bank, Defendant-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank (In Re Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litig.)"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-28"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3390"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Griffin, Larsen\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888598/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"035concurrenceinpart\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888599/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0105p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n IN RE: FIFTH THIRD EARLY ACCESS CASH ADVANCE ┐\\n LITIGATION. │\\n ___________________________________________ │\\n │\\n LORI LASKARIS; DANIEL LASKARIS; JESSIE │\\n MCQUILLEN; BRIAN C. HARRISON; JANET FYOCK; > No. 18-3390\\n WILLIAM R. KLOPFENSTEIN; ADAM MCKINNEY; │\\n DONALD E. ADANICH; LYN A. ADANICH; SCOTT D. │\\n LITTLE; DIANA HORN, on behalf of themselves and all │\\n others similarly situated, │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. │\\n │\\n FIFTH THIRD BANK, │\\n │\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.\\n No. 1:12-cv-00851—Michael R. Barrett, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: January 29, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 28, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Rachel Bloomekatz, GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.\\nDaniel R. Warren, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:\\nRachel Bloomekatz, GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C., Hassan A. Zavareei, Anna\\nC. Haac, TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, Washington, D.C., Stuart E. Scott, SPANGENBERG\\nSHIBLEY & LIBER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, Jason K. Whittemore, WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN,\\nTampa, Florida, for Appellants. Daniel R. Warren, Brett A. Wall, G. Karl Fanter, BAKER &\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 2\\n\\n\\nHOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. J. Carl Cecere, CECERE PC, Dallas, Texas,\\nfor Amicus Curiae.\\n\\n GRIFFIN, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SUTTON, J., joined, and\\nLARSEN, J., joined in part. LARSEN, J. (pg. 19), delivered a separate opinion concurring in\\npart and dissenting in part.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.\\n\\n This putative class action concerns defendant Fifth Third Bank’s “Early Access” cash\\nadvance loan program, a short-term lending option the bank offered to certain customers who\\nheld eligible checking accounts with it. Fifth Third, as both lender and bank, had direct access to\\nborrowers’ checking accounts. It deposited Early Access loans straight into borrowers’ accounts\\nand then paid itself back automatically—plus a 10% “transaction fee”—after a direct deposit\\nposted or thirty-five days elapsed, whichever came first. The contract governing the program\\ndisclosed the annual percentage rate (“APR”) as 120% in all cases.\\n\\n Plaintiffs held checking accounts with Fifth Third and obtained Early Access loans,\\nwhich were paid back automatically fewer than thirty days later. They contend that the 120%\\nfigure is false and misleading, pointing to the contract’s novel method for calculating APR—one\\nin which the APR is always the same regardless of the length of the loan. Calculated using a\\nmore conventional method, in which the APR is tied to the length of the loan, plaintiffs assert\\nthat the APR was in fact as high as 3650%.\\n\\n Plaintiffs brought a variety of state and federal claims below, but this appeal is limited to\\na single breach-of-contract claim under Ohio law. The district court granted Fifth Third’s Rule\\n12(b)(6) motion in relevant part and dismissed the breach-of-contract claim, holding that the\\ncontract unambiguously disclosed the method for calculating APR despite admitting that the\\nresult “may be misleading.” On review, we hold that the contract was ambiguous because it\\nprovided two different descriptions of “APR” that are inconsistent with each other and cannot be\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 3\\n\\n\\nreconciled. The first was a definition, lifted verbatim from a federal regulation, that describes\\nthe APR as being “expressed as a yearly rate”; the second was the method used to calculate it,\\nwhich is not based on a year or any other time period. The ambiguity raises a question of fact\\nthat should be resolved in the district court on remand.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n Fifth Third is a state-chartered, federally insured bank headquartered in Ohio, with\\nbranches in several states, including Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. “Early Access”\\nwas a short-term “cash advance” program in which eligible customers who held checking\\naccounts with Fifth Third could obtain a loan up to $1000 deposited directly into their accounts.\\nPlaintiffs describe Early Access as a type of “payday” loan: a “small loan[] due on the\\nborrower’s next ‘payday.’” Fifth Third disputes this characterization, but admitted in the\\nprogram’s terms and conditions that Early Access “is an expensive form of credit . . . designed to\\nhelp our customers meet their short-term borrowing needs . . . . We do not recommend\\ncontinued use of the service.”\\n\\n Early Access was different in that Fifth Third, the lender, also had access to its\\ncustomers’ checking accounts. When a customer requested a cash advance, Fifth Third\\ndeposited the amount into that individual’s checking account. When a customer later received a\\ndirect deposit of $100 or more, Fifth Third automatically deducted the amount of the loan from\\nthe account, plus a “transaction fee” equal to 10% of the loan’s amount. Fifth Third did this even\\nif the deduction resulted in a negative balance on the account, though it did not charge an\\noverdraft fee for this transaction. Customers also had the option of making manual payments. If\\nthe loan had not been repaid in full after thirty-five days, Fifth Third automatically deducted the\\noutstanding balance and the loan’s transaction fee from the account, even if no qualifying direct\\ndeposit had posted. Thus, the term of the loan was always thirty-five days or shorter.\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 4\\n\\n\\n Two documents explained the contours of the Early Access program: the “Summary of\\nKey Features and Terms & Conditions” and the “Frequently Asked Questions,” which were\\nincorporated into the terms and conditions by reference (collectively, “the contract”). According\\nto plaintiffs, the contract here was one of adhesion, as it was “drafted and imposed by Fifth\\nThird” and “presented to . . . customers on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis.” The contract explained\\nthat “there is no interest charge associated with an Advance,” and customers are charged the\\nsame 10% transaction fee regardless of the length of the term. It included several examples of\\nhow this works in practice, including this one:\\n\\n Lee Advanced multiple times in the week leading up to payday. She Advanced\\n $20 two times on Monday, $20 on Tuesday, and $40 on Thursday, for a total of\\n $100 in Fifth Third Early Access Advances prior to her next qualifying direct\\n deposit. When Lee receives her next qualifying direct deposit, the bank will\\n withdraw $110 as payment from her Associated Checking Account ($100 in Fifth\\n Third Early Access Advances and $10 in corresponding transaction fees).\\nIn several places, the contract discussed the Early Access program’s “annual percentage rate”\\n(“APR”). This term is familiar to many consumers and widespread across the financial sector,\\nundoubtedly because the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and\\nfederal regulations “require[] lenders to make certain prominent disclosures when extending\\ncredit, including the APR.” Rucker v. Sheehy Alexandria, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 618, 622 (E.D.\\nVa. 2003); see Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.1 et seq. TILA\\nspecifically requires that lenders use the term “annual percentage rate.” 15 U.S.C. § 1638(a)(4).\\nOne regulation defines “annual percentage rate [a]s a measure of the cost of credit, expressed as\\na yearly rate.” 12 C.F.R. § 226.14(a). Another provides a bit more detail: “[t]he annual\\npercentage rate is a measure of the cost of credit, expressed as a yearly rate, that relates the\\namount and timing of value received by the consumer to the amount and timing of payments\\nmade.” 12 C.F.R. § 1026.22(a)(1).\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 5\\n\\n\\n The contract described the APR for the Early Access program as follows:\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe 120% APR also appeared on the monthly bank statements Fifth Third provided to its\\ncustomers. After clarifying its use of “APR” as an abbreviation for “Annual Percentage Rate,”\\nthe contract explained that “[t]he APR is a measure of the cost of credit, expressed as a yearly\\nrate.” It also stated that “[w]e show the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) for Fifth Third Early\\nAccess so our customers can compare the cost of using this product against other forms of\\ncredit.” But the formula it provided for calculating APR is unique, arrived at by “dividing the\\ntransaction fee by the Advance amount and multiplying the quotient by the number of statement\\ncycles within a year. For example, $100 Advance with a $10 transaction fee = $10/$100 = 0.1%\\nX 12 cycles = 120% APR.” The result is that the APR calculated this way is always 120%,\\nregardless of the length of the loan.\\n\\n Plaintiffs all held checking accounts with Fifth Third, sought and obtained loans through\\nthe Early Access program, and paid back their loans fewer than thirty days after receiving\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 6\\n\\n\\nthem—usually by automatic deduction when a direct deposit posted to their accounts. They\\ncontend that Fifth Third’s disclosure of 120% APR is false and misleading because “Early\\nAccess Loans carry a 120% APR only when repaid in [exactly] 30 days,” and in practice, the\\nAPR is usually much higher, with an upper limit of 3650%. Plaintiffs assert that Fifth Third “has\\nmade up a formula that always yields 120% and calls it the ‘APR,’ even though the 120%\\nnumber is completely arbitrary and bears no relation to the annual cost of the Early Access\\ncredit.” They essentially accuse Fifth Third of running a “bait and switch” scheme, suggesting\\nthat the listed APR is comparable to APRs shown by other lenders before changing the meaning\\nof “APR” in the contract to make its terms appear more favorable than they are. Similarly, amici\\nargue that the contract’s APR is not really an APR at all, because “a true APR must be tied to the\\nactual length of time the loan balance is outstanding.”\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Plaintiffs William R. Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a complaint against Fifth\\nThird in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Their case was\\neventually transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated, pursuant to Federal\\nRule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2), with four other cases that also originated elsewhere. Plaintiffs’\\npost-consolidation amended complaint asserted eighteen causes of action, some on behalf of the\\nentire proposed class and others on behalf of proposed state-specific subclasses. Relevant to this\\nappeal, Count One pleaded violations of TILA and Regulation Z, and Count Four pleaded breach\\nof contract.1 Specifically, Count Four alleged that Fifth Third breached the terms of the Early\\nAccess Loans contract “by charging Plaintiffs and the other Class members APRs in excess of\\n120% on Early Access Loans,” and “by failing to provide an accurate APR summary for Early\\nAccess Loans on monthly bank statements.”\\n\\n Fifth Third moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n12(b)(6). The district court granted Fifth Third’s motion in part and dismissed every claim\\nexcept Count One. Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 1:12-cv-851, 2015 WL 1468382, at *1\\n(S.D. Ohio Mar. 30, 2015). In its brief discussion of the breach-of-contract claim, the court\\n\\n 1While the complaint did not specify in which state’s laws it bases the breach-of-contract claim, the\\ncontract’s choice-of-law provision makes clear that Ohio law applies.\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 7\\n\\n\\nnoted that the APR provision “may be misleading because not every transaction is paid in twelve\\ncycles,” but concluded that the contract was “unambiguous in [its] explanation as to the method\\nfor calculating the APR.” Id. at *7. Because plaintiffs did not dispute that they were charged the\\n10% transaction fee regardless of the length of their loans, the district court found that no breach\\noccurred and dismissed the claim. Id.\\n\\n Plaintiffs sought reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). After\\nholding a status conference and discussing a possible settlement agreement with the parties, the\\ncourt denied the motion as moot, subject to refiling. The parties then engaged in discovery and\\n“extensive [c]ourt-mediated settlement discussions.” In re Fifth Third Early Access Cash\\nAdvance Litig., No. 1:12-cv-851, 2018 WL 1521771, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2018). The\\nparties also entered into a “preliminary Memorandum of Understanding” to settle the case. Id.\\nOnce discovery revealed that the contract claim’s damages were much higher than expected—\\nand “exponentially higher than the potential TILA damages due to TILA’s statutory caps”—\\nsettlement negotiations stalled and the parties were ultimately unable to reach an agreement. Id.\\n\\n Plaintiffs then moved for the entry of a final judgment with respect to only the dismissed\\nbreach-of-contract claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). This rule “permits\\nimmediate appellate review of a district court’s judgment even though the lawsuit contains\\nunresolved claims.” GenCorp, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 390 F.3d 433, 442 (6th Cir. 2004). Fifth Third\\nopposed the motion. After finding that the TILA and breach-of-contract counts were sufficiently\\ndistinct, and that there was no just reason for delay, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion,\\ncertified the breach-of-contract claim for entry of a final judgment, and stayed the rest of the case\\npending appeal. Early Access Litig., 2018 WL 1521771, at *2–4.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Fifth Third argues that the district court improperly certified the dismissed breach-of-\\ncontract claim as a final judgment under Rule 54(b). If Fifth Third is correct, then this court\\nlacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this appeal. Lowery v. Fed. Express Corp., 426 F.3d\\n817, 820 (6th Cir. 2005). Appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 is limited to “final\\ndecisions” and, “[f]or the most part, a district court’s decision counts as ‘final’ only if it takes\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 8\\n\\n\\ncare of all claims and all parties in the case.” Adler v. Elk Glenn, LLC, 758 F.3d 737, 739 (6th\\nCir. 2014) (Sutton, J., concurring). If a case involves multiple claims or parties, however, a\\ndistrict court may “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims\\nor parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R.\\nCiv. P. 54(b). Rule 54(b) thus allows immediate appellate review of some claims while the rest\\nof the case remains in the district court. “This exception pays tribute to the reality that the\\nbenefits of immediate appeals on occasion exceed the costs.” Adler, 758 F.3d at 739 (Sutton, J.,\\nconcurring).\\n\\n Certification of a claim under Rule 54(b) has two steps. “First, the district court must\\nexpressly direct the entry of final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all the claims or\\nparties in a case. Second, the district court must expressly determine that there is no just reason\\nto delay appellate review.” Gen. Acquisition, Inc. v. GenCorp, Inc., 23 F.3d 1022, 1026 (6th Cir.\\n1994) (cleaned up). “We review de novo the district court’s conclusions on the first inquiry and\\nfor abuse of discretion the district court’s finding of no just reason for delay.” EJS Props., LLC\\nv. City of Toledo, 689 F.3d 535, 537 (6th Cir. 2012).\\n\\n A.\\n\\n Determining whether the district court “direct[ed] entry of a final judgment as to one or\\nmore, but fewer than all, claims” is trickier than it sounds, because in this context, “claim” is a\\nterm of art. As the district court explained, the parties’ “dispute centers on whether the contract\\nclaims and the TILA claim should be considered a single ‘claim.’” Early Access Litig., 2018\\nWL 1521771, at *2. Here we apply the “operative facts” test, which defines a “‘claim’ under\\nRule 54(b) ‘[as] the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the\\ncourts’ even if the party has raised different theories of relief.” Olin Corp., 390 F.3d at 442\\n(quoting Gen. Acquisition, 23 F.3d at 1028). In applying this test, we examine the causes of\\naction as pleaded in the complaint and consider whether they “seek to recover for the same\\nunderlying injury.” Lowery, 426 F.3d at 821. While remaining mindful that Rule 54(b)\\nrepresents an exception to “the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals,” Sears,\\nRoebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 438 (1956), this court has also cautioned against\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 9\\n\\n\\napplying the operative facts test “too broadly,” Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Region v. DeWine,\\n696 F.3d 490, 501 (6th Cir. 2012).\\n\\n Fifth Third chiefly relies on Lowery v. Federal Express Corp. in support of its argument\\nthat the breach-of-contract and TILA counts represent a single “claim.” 426 F.3d 817. In that\\ncase, we dismissed an appeal certified under Rule 54(b) where the two counts in question were\\nfor breach of contract under Tennessee law and retaliation under Title VII. Id. at 821. After\\nnoting that it is easy to imagine a case in which those two causes of action could involve separate\\nlegal rights, the court found that, as pleaded, “both causes of action arose out of the same\\naggregate of operative facts and seek to recover for the same underlying injury.” Id.\\nSpecifically, “the contractual promise was that [the] plaintiff would not be retaliated against for\\nfiling the grievance. That is, the alleged breach was the retaliation.” Id.\\n\\n This case is different in two critical respects. First, the TILA and breach-of-contract\\ncounts stem from different acts or omissions of Fifth Third. In breach-of-contract actions, Ohio\\nlaw requires, unsurprisingly, that a plaintiff prove a defendant’s breach. Samadder v. DMF of\\nOhio, Inc., 798 N.E.2d 1141, 1147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). The complaint alleges that Fifth Third\\nbreached by charging plaintiffs APRs higher than 120% on their Early Access Loans and by\\nfailing to provide accurate APR summaries on plaintiffs’ monthly bank statements. TILA\\n“requires creditors to provide borrowers with clear and accurate disclosures of terms dealing\\nwith things like finance charges, annual percentage rates of interest, and the borrower’s rights.”\\nBeach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412 (1998); see 15 U.S.C. § 1631. A cause of action\\nunder TILA arises when a defendant fails to make these disclosures, Beach, 523 U.S. at 412, and\\nplaintiffs’ complaint here alleges as much. Thus, “[t]he TILA claim does not involve the\\nobligations created by the underlying contract.” Maddox v. Ky. Fin. Co., 736 F.2d 380, 382 (6th\\nCir. 1984) (discussing Whigham v. Beneficial Fin. Co. of Fayetteville, 599 F.2d 1322 (4th Cir.\\n1979)); see also Lea v. Buy Direct, L.L.C., 755 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 2014) (“TILA is a\\ndisclosure law designed to protect consumers and does not implicate the duty of subsequent\\nperformance on the relevant contract or contracts.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). While\\nthe breach-of-contract claim focuses on the amount of money that Fifth Third charged plaintiffs,\\nthe TILA claim is based on different conduct: failure to make required disclosures.\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 10\\n\\n\\n Second, each count seeks to recover damages that stem from separate injuries. In a\\nbreach-of-contract action under Ohio law, a plaintiff must prove “damages or loss resulting from\\nthe breach,” Claris, Ltd. v. Hotel Dev. Servs., LLC, 104 N.E.3d 1076, 1083 (Ohio Ct. App.\\n2018), and “the amount of damages awarded must correspond to injuries resulting from the\\nbreach,” Textron Fin. Corp. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 684 N.E.2d 1261, 1266 (Ohio Ct. App.\\n1996). But “[a] plaintiff in a TILA case need not prove that he or she suffered actual monetary\\ndamages in order to recover the statutory damages and attorney’s fees.” Purtle v. Eldridge Auto\\nSales, Inc., 91 F.3d 797, 800 (6th Cir. 1996). “Rather, the TILA claim enforces a federal policy\\nregarding disclosure by invoking a penalty.” Maddox, 736 F.2d at 382. Plaintiffs’ complaint\\ntracks these differences, requesting not only actual damages, but also statutory damages,\\nattorney’s fees, and costs under TILA. In this way, the damages sought in each count are\\ngrounded in different places.\\n\\n To be sure, each count is not entirely divorced from the other. For example, the\\ncomplaint alleges that Fifth Third “breached the contract by failing to provide an accurate APR\\nsummary for Early Access Loans on monthly bank statements.” Similarly, the TILA count\\nalleges that Fifth Third “did not provide accurate and meaningful APR disclosures to Plaintiffs\\nregarding Early Access Loans.” But claims can be separate for the purposes of Rule 54(b)\\n“despite the presence of some overlap,” and under the operative facts test, the differences\\nbetween plaintiffs’ TILA and breach-of-contract counts as pleaded “sufficiently outweigh what\\nthey have in common.” DeWine, 696 F.3d at 502. “Because each count involves distinct facts\\nrelating to separate injuries, each count is a separate claim for purposes of Rule 54(b).” Id.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n While Fifth Third challenges only the first part of the district court’s ruling on\\ncertification, we must review the entire decision to determine whether this court has appellate\\njurisdiction. See Lowery, 426 F.3d at 820. Determining whether there is no just reason for delay\\nunder Rule 54(b) “requires the district court to balance the needs of the parties against the\\ninterests of efficient case management.” Gen. Acquisition, 23 F.3d at 1027. This court has\\nprovided the following, non-exhaustive list of factors that a district court should consider:\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 11\\n\\n\\n (1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) the\\n possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future\\n developments in the district court; (3) the possibility that the reviewing court\\n might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time; (4) the presence or\\n absence of a claim or counterclaim which could result in set-off against the\\n judgment sought to be made final; (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay,\\n economic and solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial, frivolity of\\n competing claims, expense and the like.\\n\\nId. at 1030 (quoting Corrosioneering, Inc. v. Thyssen Envtl. Sys., Inc., 807 F.2d 1279, 1283 (6th\\nCir. 1986)).\\n\\n Here, the district court discussed each of the above factors, applied them to this case, and\\ndetermined that they weighed in favor of certifying the breach-of-contract claim. Early Access\\nLitig., 2018 WL 1521771, at *3. The court also addressed the miscellaneous factors, noting that\\n“the possibility of settling a claim may tip the balance in favor of a partial final judgment under\\nRule 54(b).” Id. (citing Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 n.2 (1980)).\\nBecause plaintiffs had moved for reconsideration of the breach-of-contract claim’s dismissal—\\nand had “remained steadfast in their position that this Court was incorrect in [that] ruling”—and\\nin light of the extensive settlement discussions undertaken by the parties, the district court found\\nthat “if a judgment on the breach of contract claims would facilitate the settlement of the case, it\\nserves efficient judicial administration by conserving judicial time and limited litigation\\nexpenses.” Id. Finally, the court explicitly found that there was “no just reason for delay.” Id.\\n\\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing these issues. It “explicitly\\nweighed the non-exhaustive list of factors we have provided for determining whether to find just\\nreason for delay” and reached a reasonable conclusion based on that analysis. DeWine, 696 F.3d\\nat 503. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court’s certification under Rule 54(b) was\\nproper, and we have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Kaminski v.\\nCoulter, 865 F.3d 339, 344 (6th Cir. 2017). Accepting all allegations in the complaint as true,\\nand drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor, Gavitt v. Born, 835 F.3d 623, 639–40\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 12\\n\\n\\n(6th Cir. 2016), we “must determine whether the allegations plausibly state a claim for relief,”\\nSegal v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., 581 F.3d 305, 308 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556\\nU.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “However, ‘a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation’ need not\\nbe accepted as true.” Kaminski, 865 F.3d at 344 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.\\n544, 555 (2007)).\\n\\n “To establish a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a\\ncontract, (2) performance by the plaintiff, (3) breach by the defendant, and (4) damages or loss\\nresulting from the breach.” Claris, 104 N.E.3d at 1083. Under Ohio law, contract interpretation,\\nincluding a determination as to whether a contract is ambiguous, is a question of law. Envision\\nWaste Servs., LLC v. Cty. of Medina, 83 N.E.3d 270, 275 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). Courts should\\ninterpret contracts “so as to carry out the intent of the parties, as that intent is evidenced by the\\ncontractual language.” Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 71 N.E.3d 1010, 1012 (Ohio\\n2016) (quoting Skivolocki v. E. Ohio Gas Co., 313 N.E.2d 374, 376 (Ohio 1974)). In doing so,\\nwe examine the contract “as a whole” and attempt to “give effect to every provision.” Sunoco,\\nInc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison Co., 953 N.E.2d 285, 292, 295 (Ohio 2011). “Common words . . .\\nwill be given their ordinary meaning unless manifest absurdity results, or unless some other\\nmeaning is clearly evidenced from the face or overall contents of the instrument. Technical\\nterms will be given their technical meaning, unless a different intention is clearly expressed.”\\nFoster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth., 678 N.E.2d 519,\\n526 (Ohio 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\\n\\n But if a contract’s “language is unclear, indefinite, and reasonably subject to dual\\ninterpretations or is of such doubtful meaning that reasonable minds could disagree as to its\\nmeaning,” then it is ambiguous as a matter of law. Cadle v. D’Amico, 66 N.E.3d 1184, 1188\\n(Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If ambiguity exists . . . the meaning\\nof a contract is a question of fact.” Books A Million, Inc. v. H & N Enters., Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d\\n846, 854 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (citing Amstutz v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 26 N.E.2d 454 (Ohio\\n1940)).\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 13\\n\\n\\n A.\\n\\n Plaintiffs assert that Fifth Third breached the contract “by charging [them] APRs in\\nexcess of 120% on Early Access Loans.”2 Fifth Third disagrees, contending that “[t]he agreed-\\nupon meaning of the APR disclosure is set forth in the contract,” and Fifth Third’s conduct\\nadhered to that definition. Thus, the meaning of the term “APR” is central to this dispute. As\\ndiscussed above, the contract explains the term “APR” in two ways. First, it states that “APR is\\na measure of the cost of credit, expressed as a yearly rate,” a verbatim recitation of the APR\\ndefinition found in Regulation Z. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.14(a). Then, it explains that “[t]he\\nAnnual Percentage Rate is calculated by dividing the transaction fee by the Advance amount and\\nmultiplying the quotient by the number of statement cycles within a year. For example,\\n$100 Advance with a $10 transaction fee = $10/$100 = 0.1% X 12 cycles = 120% APR.”\\nPlaintiffs argue that these two definitions of the same key term are inconsistent because the\\nactual formula does not produce an APR that is “expressed as a yearly rate.” Instead, it always\\nproduces an APR of 120%, regardless of the length of the loan term, and, in this way, it is\\nuntethered to a year or any other time period.\\n\\n Plaintiffs provide numerous examples comparing results from the contract’s APR\\nformula with results from a different formula for calculating APR that is “expressed as a yearly\\nrate.” Plaintiffs do not explicitly provide their alternate formula, but from the complaint’s\\nexamples, it is easy to discern. Their formula (1) divides the finance charge by the principal loan\\namount, (2) multiplies the quotient of that by the number of days in a year, (3) divides the\\nproduct of that by the number of days in the loan term, and (4) multiplies the quotient of that by\\n100 to get a percentage.3 The result is what the loan would look like if it were extrapolated to be\\n\\n\\n 2As mentioned above, the complaint also alleges that Fifth Third “breached the contract by failing to\\nprovide an accurate APR summary for Early Access Loans on monthly bank statements.” But plaintiffs’ briefs\\nbarely mention the monthly statements and do not include any argument specific to them or that breach-of-contract\\ntheory. “We have repeatedly held that a party forfeits any allegations that lack developed argument.” Jones Bros.,\\nInc. v. Sec’y of Labor, 898 F.3d 669, 677 (6th Cir. 2018). To the extent that this alternate theory is a part of this\\nappeal at all, plaintiffs have thus forfeited it.\\n 3The Consumer Federation of America, which has filed an amicus brief in this case, includes a publication\\non its web site that advocates using this formula in the context of payday loans. Arkansans Against Abusive Payday\\nLending, How to Calculate the Interest Rate on Payday Loans, https://consumerfed.org/pdfs/AAAPL-How-to-\\nCalculate-Interest-Rate.pdf (last visited Apr. 9, 2019).\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 14\\n\\n\\nfor a term of one year, or “annualized,” and the cost of credit remained the same across that\\nlonger term.\\n\\n For example, the complaint alleges that plaintiff “Fyock borrowed an Early Access Loan\\nin the amount of $650.00 from her Early Access account. Fourteen days later . . . Fyock received\\na direct deposit and Fifth Third debited $715.00 to repay this Early Access Loan. This resulted\\nin an APR of approximately 260%.” Plugged into plaintiffs’ formula (and rounded to the\\nhundredths place), the numbers look like this:\\n\\n 65\\n × 365\\n 650 × 100 = 260.71%\\n 14\\nWhat this result attempts to explain is that charging $65 to borrow $650 for fourteen days is the\\ncost-of-credit equivalent of charging $1694.64 to borrow the same amount for a whole year. Of\\ncourse, the terms of the Early Access program don’t allow a loan to be outstanding for that long,\\nand even if they did, the “transaction fee” does not increase over time in the way that other types\\nof lending charges, like compound interest, might. But APR and other required disclosures have\\nvalue because they allow consumers “to compare more readily the various credit terms\\navailable . . . and avoid the uninformed use of credit.” 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a). “Annualizing” the\\ncost of credit is APR’s method of doing so.\\n\\n Returning to the above example from the complaint, calculating the APR using the\\nformula provided in the contract yields a different result than plaintiffs’ formula:\\n\\n 65\\n × 12 = 120%\\n 650\\nIn another example, “[plaintiff] McKinney borrowed an Early Access Loan in the amount of\\n$200. Three days later . . . McKinney received a direct deposit and Fifth Third debited $220 to\\nrepay that loan. This resulted in an APR of approximately 1,217% . . . .” Again, the numbers\\nplug into plaintiffs’ formula thus:\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 15\\n\\n\\n 20\\n × 365\\n 200 × 100 = 1216.67%\\n 3\\nUsing the formula in the contract yields a result different from the above, but identical to the\\nresult from the first example:\\n\\n 20\\n × 12 = 120%\\n 200\\nThis extreme example shows a tenfold difference in APR between the two formulas, with the\\nAPR from the contract yielding a number that appears much more favorable to the consumer.\\n\\n But the formula from the contract can also result in a higher APR than the formula used\\nby plaintiffs. If a customer borrowed $100 and a direct deposit never posted to his checking\\naccount, Fifth Third would automatically deduct $110 thirty-five days later, resulting in APR of\\nabout 104% using plaintiffs’ formula:\\n\\n 10\\n × 365\\n 100 × 100 = 104.29%\\n 35\\nMeanwhile, the contract’s formula yields the same result as before, this time, overstating the\\nAPR compared to the other formula:\\n\\n 10\\n × 12 = 120%\\n 100\\n B.\\n\\n These examples demonstrate that the contract’s formula for calculating APR is static, and\\nalways the same regardless of the length of the loan. Loans with lengths of three, fourteen, and\\nthirty-five days all receive APRs of 120%. Hence, any APR produced using the contract’s\\nformula cannot be “expressed as a yearly rate.” Definitions for “yearly” include “pertaining to a\\nyear or to each year” and “computed or determined by the year,” and the parties do not dispute\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 16\\n\\n\\nthat the word is inextricably tied to a period of a time. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 2201\\n(2001).\\n\\n In addition to providing an explicit definition, the contract contains other indications that\\nthe APR is tied to a year’s time. First, the term “APR” itself includes the word “annual,” which\\nis defined as “[o]ccurring once every year; yearly,” or “[o]f, relating to, or involving a period of\\none year.” Black’s Law Dictionary 109 (10th ed. 2014). Its presence provides further support to\\nthe contract’s promise that the APR would be “expressed as a yearly rate.” Of course, Fifth\\nThird must include the term “annual percentage rate” in order to comply with TILA’s\\nrequirements, but that does not mean that the word should be assigned any less meaning or\\nimportance as a matter of contract interpretation. The contract does not inform customers that\\nthis disclosure is mandatory either. To the contrary, it states that APR is included “so our\\ncustomers can compare the cost of using this product against other forms of credit.” Second, the\\ncontract’s formula includes as a factor “the number of statement cycles within a year.” This\\ndetail is perhaps the most misleading of all, signaling to customers that the APR formula is\\nsomehow tied to a yearly rate when it is not.\\n\\n The contract also includes a mathematical error in one of its examples explaining how the\\nAPR formula works in practice. The Terms and Conditions document contains the following\\nlanguage: “[f]or example, $100 Advance with a $10 transaction fee = $10/$100 = 0.1% X 12\\ncycles = 120% APR.” But 10 divided by 100 equals 0.1, not 0.1% or 0.001 as it would be\\nexpressed without a percentage sign. And 0.001 times 12 equals 0.012 or 1.2%, not 120% as the\\nexample states. Fifth Third acknowledged the error at oral argument, but dismissed it as a “typo”\\nstemming from “transposing from percentage to decimal points.” In any case, by describing\\nAPR in another inconsistent way, this error adds to the uncertainty surrounding the contract’s\\npurported meaning of the term.\\n\\n The contract thus provides multiple descriptions of “APR” that are inconsistent with one\\nanother. What complicates things is that one is a definition while another is a formula; the two\\nare naturally expressed in different ways. One might say, for example, that “compound interest”\\nis defined as “interest paid on both the principal and the accrued interest.” Webster’s\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 17\\n\\n\\nUnabridged Dictionary 420 (2001). But the method of calculating compound interest might look\\nlike this4:\\n\\n 𝑟 𝑛𝑡\\n 𝐴 = 𝑃 (1 + )\\n 𝑛\\n\\nA reasonable person would recognize that the two don’t mean exactly the same thing, but would\\nexpect them to be consistent. Here, there is no way for the contract’s definition of APR to be\\nconsistent with the formula it provides.\\n\\n Fifth Third makes no attempt to explain how the contract’s method of calculating\\nAPR can be “expressed as a yearly rate.” In fact, Fifth Third’s counsel confirmed at oral\\nargument that the contract’s calculation of “APR has nothing to do with borrowing the money on\\na yearly basis.” Instead, Fifth Third stresses that “the Early Access contract unambiguously\\nprovided for a flat transaction fee of 10 percent” and that the “calculation of the APR merely\\nreflected, and did not change, the flat transaction fee” Fifth Third asks us to conclude from these\\npremises that the contract is unambiguous as a matter of law. But this interpretation would\\nrequire us to ignore the contract’s definition of APR as “a measure of the cost of credit,\\nexpressed as a yearly rate.” Because we must “give effect to every provision,” we cannot\\nendorse an interpretation that would read language out of the contract entirely. Sunoco,\\n953 N.E.2d at 295.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n No interpretation of the contract can give effect to one definition that specifies that APR\\nis “expressed as a yearly rate” while also giving effect to a formula that precludes such an\\nexpression. Because the term “APR” as it appears in the contract is “reasonably susceptible of\\nmore than one interpretation,” it is ambiguous as a matter of law. Santana v. Auto Owners Ins.\\nCo., 632 N.E.2d 1308, 1313 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). And because “the meaning of the ambiguous\\nlanguage is a question of fact,” SPG, Inc. v. First St. Dev., L.L.C., 64 N.E.3d 340, 347 (Ohio Ct.\\nApp. 2016), it should, “in the first instance, be decided by the district court,” Roth Steel Prods. v.\\n\\n 4See Compound Interest Calculator, https://www.calculator net/compound-interest-calculator html (last\\nvisited Apr. 9, 2019).\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 18\\n\\n\\nSharon Steel Corp., 705 F.2d 134, 153–54 (6th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we do not address the\\nparties’ arguments concerning latent ambiguity and other factual issues. We also decline to\\nconsider the parties’ numerous arguments based on TILA and Regulation Z. That claim is not\\nbefore us and we take no position as to its merits.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n For these reasons, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 19\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4401043/\", \"author_raw\": \"GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.\"}, {\"author\": \"LARSEN, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"LARSEN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join Part II of the\\nmajority opinion, which concludes that we have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal.\\nI depart, however, from my colleagues when it comes to the reading of the parties’ contract.\\n\\n Under Ohio law, parties are free to define the terms in a contract as they see fit, even\\nthose that otherwise have well-understood common or technical meanings, so long as the parties’\\nintent is clear. See Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities\\nAuth., 678 N.E.2d 519, 526 (Ohio 1997). The parties’ intent “is presumed to reside in the\\nlanguage they chose to employ in the agreement.” Id. The contract here defines Annual\\nPercentage Rate (APR) in an idiosyncratic but abundantly clear manner. At all times, the\\ncontract expressly ties the APR to the transaction fee and the borrower’s statement cycles. The\\nremainder of the contract explains, no fewer than ten times, that the cost of the loan is a flat, 10%\\ntransaction fee. The contract also clearly explains that the 10% transaction fee is assessed\\nwithout regard to the length of time the loan remains outstanding. All plaintiffs were charged the\\n10% transaction fee—nothing more, nothing less.\\n\\n Federal law may require that terms like APR be defined and disclosed in a particular\\nway; and to the extent that such requirements apply here, plaintiffs’ recourse lies in their Truth in\\nLending Act (TILA) claim. See Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412 (1998)\\n(recognizing that the TILA “requires creditors to provide borrowers with clear and accurate\\ndisclosures of terms dealing with things like . . . [APRs]” and provides for “statutory and actual\\ndamages traceable to a lender’s failure to make the requisite disclosures”). But plaintiffs got the\\nbenefit of their bargain, and so their breach of contract claim fails. See JNT Props., LLC v.\\nKeybank Nat’l Ass’n, 981 N.E.2d 804, 806–07 (Ohio 2012).\\n\\n For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4401043/\", \"author_raw\": \"LARSEN, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFIN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"LARSEN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFIN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623790/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: In RE: FIFTH THIRD EARLY ACCESS CASH ADVANCE LITIGATION. Lori Laskaris; Daniel Laskaris; Jessie McQuillen; Brian C. Harrison ; Janet Fyock; William R. Klopfenstein; Adam McKinney ; Donald E. Adanich; Lyn A. Adanich; Scott D. Little ; Diana Horn, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Fifth Third Bank, Defendant-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-28\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0105p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n IN RE: FIFTH THIRD EARLY ACCESS CASH ADVANCE ┐\n LITIGATION. │\n ___________________________________________ │\n │\n LORI LASKARIS; DANIEL LASKARIS; JESSIE │\n MCQUILLEN; BRIAN C. HARRISON; JANET FYOCK; > No. 18-3390\n WILLIAM R. KLOPFENSTEIN; ADAM MCKINNEY; │\n DONALD E. ADANICH; LYN A. ADANICH; SCOTT D. │\n LITTLE; DIANA HORN, on behalf of themselves and all │\n others similarly situated, │\n Plaintiffs-Appellants, │\n │\n │\n v. │\n │\n FIFTH THIRD BANK, │\n │\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.\n No. 1:12-cv-00851—Michael R. Barrett, District Judge.\n\n Argued: January 29, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 28, 2019\n\n Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Rachel Bloomekatz, GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.\nDaniel R. Warren, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:\nRachel Bloomekatz, GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C., Hassan A. Zavareei, Anna\nC. Haac, TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, Washington, D.C., Stuart E. Scott, SPANGENBERG\nSHIBLEY & LIBER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, Jason K. Whittemore, WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN,\nTampa, Florida, for Appellants. Daniel R. Warren, Brett A. Wall, G. Karl Fanter, BAKER &\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 2\n\n\nHOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. J. Carl Cecere, CECERE PC, Dallas, Texas,\nfor Amicus Curiae.\n\n GRIFFIN, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SUTTON, J., joined, and\nLARSEN, J., joined in part. LARSEN, J. (pg. 19), delivered a separate opinion concurring in\npart and dissenting in part.\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.\n\n This putative class action concerns defendant Fifth Third Bank’s “Early Access” cash\nadvance loan program, a short-term lending option the bank offered to certain customers who\nheld eligible checking accounts with it. Fifth Third, as both lender and bank, had direct access to\nborrowers’ checking accounts. It deposited Early Access loans straight into borrowers’ accounts\nand then paid itself back automatically—plus a 10% “transaction fee”—after a direct deposit\nposted or thirty-five days elapsed, whichever came first. The contract governing the program\ndisclosed the annual percentage rate (“APR”) as 120% in all cases.\n\n Plaintiffs held checking accounts with Fifth Third and obtained Early Access loans,\nwhich were paid back automatically fewer than thirty days later. They contend that the 120%\nfigure is false and misleading, pointing to the contract’s novel method for calculating APR—one\nin which the APR is always the same regardless of the length of the loan. Calculated using a\nmore conventional method, in which the APR is tied to the length of the loan, plaintiffs assert\nthat the APR was in fact as high as 3650%.\n\n Plaintiffs brought a variety of state and federal claims below, but this appeal is limited to\na single breach-of-contract claim under Ohio law. The district court granted Fifth Third’s Rule\n12(b)(6) motion in relevant part and dismissed the breach-of-contract claim, holding that the\ncontract unambiguously disclosed the method for calculating APR despite admitting that the\nresult “may be misleading.” On review, we hold that the contract was ambiguous because it\nprovided two different descriptions of “APR” that are inconsistent with each other and cannot be\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 3\n\n\nreconciled. The first was a definition, lifted verbatim from a federal regulation, that describes\nthe APR as being “expressed as a yearly rate”; the second was the method used to calculate it,\nwhich is not based on a year or any other time period. The ambiguity raises a question of fact\nthat should be resolved in the district court on remand.\n\n I.\n\n A.\n\n Fifth Third is a state-chartered, federally insured bank headquartered in Ohio, with\nbranches in several states, including Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. “Early Access”\nwas a short-term “cash advance” program in which eligible customers who held checking\naccounts with Fifth Third could obtain a loan up to $1000 deposited directly into their accounts.\nPlaintiffs describe Early Access as a type of “payday” loan: a “small loan[] due on the\nborrower’s next ‘payday.’” Fifth Third disputes this characterization, but admitted in the\nprogram’s terms and conditions that Early Access “is an expensive form of credit . . . designed to\nhelp our customers meet their short-term borrowing needs . . . . We do not recommend\ncontinued use of the service.”\n\n Early Access was different in that Fifth Third, the lender, also had access to its\ncustomers’ checking accounts. When a customer requested a cash advance, Fifth Third\ndeposited the amount into that individual’s checking account. When a customer later received a\ndirect deposit of $100 or more, Fifth Third automatically deducted the amount of the loan from\nthe account, plus a “transaction fee” equal to 10% of the loan’s amount. Fifth Third did this even\nif the deduction resulted in a negative balance on the account, though it did not charge an\noverdraft fee for this transaction. Customers also had the option of making manual payments. If\nthe loan had not been repaid in full after thirty-five days, Fifth Third automatically deducted the\noutstanding balance and the loan’s transaction fee from the account, even if no qualifying direct\ndeposit had posted. Thus, the term of the loan was always thirty-five days or shorter.\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 4\n\n\n Two documents explained the contours of the Early Access program: the “Summary of\nKey Features and Terms & Conditions” and the “Frequently Asked Questions,” which were\nincorporated into the terms and conditions by reference (collectively, “the contract”). According\nto plaintiffs, the contract here was one of adhesion, as it was “drafted and imposed by Fifth\nThird” and “presented to . . . customers on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis.” The contract explained\nthat “there is no interest charge associated with an Advance,” and customers are charged the\nsame 10% transaction fee regardless of the length of the term. It included several examples of\nhow this works in practice, including this one:\n\n Lee Advanced multiple times in the week leading up to payday. She Advanced\n $20 two times on Monday, $20 on Tuesday, and $40 on Thursday, for a total of\n $100 in Fifth Third Early Access Advances prior to her next qualifying direct\n deposit. When Lee receives her next qualifying direct deposit, the bank will\n withdraw $110 as payment from her Associated Checking Account ($100 in Fifth\n Third Early Access Advances and $10 in corresponding transaction fees).\nIn several places, the contract discussed the Early Access program’s “annual percentage rate”\n(“APR”). This term is familiar to many consumers and widespread across the financial sector,\nundoubtedly because the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and\nfederal regulations “require[] lenders to make certain prominent disclosures when extending\ncredit, including the APR.” Rucker v. Sheehy Alexandria, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 618, 622 (E.D.\nVa. 2003); see Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.1 et seq. TILA\nspecifically requires that lenders use the term “annual percentage rate.” 15 U.S.C. § 1638(a)(4).\nOne regulation defines “annual percentage rate [a]s a measure of the cost of credit, expressed as\na yearly rate.” 12 C.F.R. § 226.14(a). Another provides a bit more detail: “[t]he annual\npercentage rate is a measure of the cost of credit, expressed as a yearly rate, that relates the\namount and timing of value received by the consumer to the amount and timing of payments\nmade.” 12 C.F.R. § 1026.22(a)(1).\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 5\n\n\n The contract described the APR for the Early Access program as follows:\n\n\n\n\nThe 120% APR also appeared on the monthly bank statements Fifth Third provided to its\ncustomers. After clarifying its use of “APR” as an abbreviation for “Annual Percentage Rate,”\nthe contract explained that “[t]he APR is a measure of the cost of credit, expressed as a yearly\nrate.” It also stated that “[w]e show the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) for Fifth Third Early\nAccess so our customers can compare the cost of using this product against other forms of\ncredit.” But the formula it provided for calculating APR is unique, arrived at by “dividing the\ntransaction fee by the Advance amount and multiplying the quotient by the number of statement\ncycles within a year. For example, $100 Advance with a $10 transaction fee = $10/$100 = 0.1%\nX 12 cycles = 120% APR.” The result is that the APR calculated this way is always 120%,\nregardless of the length of the loan.\n\n Plaintiffs all held checking accounts with Fifth Third, sought and obtained loans through\nthe Early Access program, and paid back their loans fewer than thirty days after receiving\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 6\n\n\nthem—usually by automatic deduction when a direct deposit posted to their accounts. They\ncontend that Fifth Third’s disclosure of 120% APR is false and misleading because “Early\nAccess Loans carry a 120% APR only when repaid in [exactly] 30 days,” and in practice, the\nAPR is usually much higher, with an upper limit of 3650%. Plaintiffs assert that Fifth Third “has\nmade up a formula that always yields 120% and calls it the ‘APR,’ even though the 120%\nnumber is completely arbitrary and bears no relation to the annual cost of the Early Access\ncredit.” They essentially accuse Fifth Third of running a “bait and switch” scheme, suggesting\nthat the listed APR is comparable to APRs shown by other lenders before changing the meaning\nof “APR” in the contract to make its terms appear more favorable than they are. Similarly, amici\nargue that the contract’s APR is not really an APR at all, because “a true APR must be tied to the\nactual length of time the loan balance is outstanding.”\n\n B.\n\n Plaintiffs William R. Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a complaint against Fifth\nThird in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Their case was\neventually transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated, pursuant to Federal\nRule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2), with four other cases that also originated elsewhere. Plaintiffs’\npost-consolidation amended complaint asserted eighteen causes of action, some on behalf of the\nentire proposed class and others on behalf of proposed state-specific subclasses. Relevant to this\nappeal, Count One pleaded violations of TILA and Regulation Z, and Count Four pleaded breach\nof contract.1 Specifically, Count Four alleged that Fifth Third breached the terms of the Early\nAccess Loans contract “by charging Plaintiffs and the other Class members APRs in excess of\n120% on Early Access Loans,” and “by failing to provide an accurate APR summary for Early\nAccess Loans on monthly bank statements.”\n\n Fifth Third moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n12(b)(6). The district court granted Fifth Third’s motion in part and dismissed every claim\nexcept Count One. Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 1:12-cv-851, 2015 WL 1468382, at *1\n(S.D. Ohio Mar. 30, 2015). In its brief discussion of the breach-of-contract claim, the court\n\n 1While the complaint did not specify in which state’s laws it bases the breach-of-contract claim, the\ncontract’s choice-of-law provision makes clear that Ohio law applies.\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 7\n\n\nnoted that the APR provision “may be misleading because not every transaction is paid in twelve\ncycles,” but concluded that the contract was “unambiguous in [its] explanation as to the method\nfor calculating the APR.” Id. at *7. Because plaintiffs did not dispute that they were charged the\n10% transaction fee regardless of the length of their loans, the district court found that no breach\noccurred and dismissed the claim. Id.\n\n Plaintiffs sought reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). After\nholding a status conference and discussing a possible settlement agreement with the parties, the\ncourt denied the motion as moot, subject to refiling. The parties then engaged in discovery and\n“extensive [c]ourt-mediated settlement discussions.” In re Fifth Third Early Access Cash\nAdvance Litig., No. 1:12-cv-851, 2018 WL 1521771, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2018). The\nparties also entered into a “preliminary Memorandum of Understanding” to settle the case. Id.\nOnce discovery revealed that the contract claim’s damages were much higher than expected—\nand “exponentially higher than the potential TILA damages due to TILA’s statutory caps”—\nsettlement negotiations stalled and the parties were ultimately unable to reach an agreement. Id.\n\n Plaintiffs then moved for the entry of a final judgment with respect to only the dismissed\nbreach-of-contract claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). This rule “permits\nimmediate appellate review of a district court’s judgment even though the lawsuit contains\nunresolved claims.” GenCorp, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 390 F.3d 433, 442 (6th Cir. 2004). Fifth Third\nopposed the motion. After finding that the TILA and breach-of-contract counts were sufficiently\ndistinct, and that there was no just reason for delay, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion,\ncertified the breach-of-contract claim for entry of a final judgment, and stayed the rest of the case\npending appeal. Early Access Litig., 2018 WL 1521771, at *2–4.\n\n II.\n\n Fifth Third argues that the district court improperly certified the dismissed breach-of-\ncontract claim as a final judgment under Rule 54(b). If Fifth Third is correct, then this court\nlacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this appeal. Lowery v. Fed. Express Corp., 426 F.3d\n817, 820 (6th Cir. 2005). Appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 is limited to “final\ndecisions” and, “[f]or the most part, a district court’s decision counts as ‘final’ only if it takes\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 8\n\n\ncare of all claims and all parties in the case.” Adler v. Elk Glenn, LLC, 758 F.3d 737, 739 (6th\nCir. 2014) (Sutton, J., concurring). If a case involves multiple claims or parties, however, a\ndistrict court may “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims\nor parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R.\nCiv. P. 54(b). Rule 54(b) thus allows immediate appellate review of some claims while the rest\nof the case remains in the district court. “This exception pays tribute to the reality that the\nbenefits of immediate appeals on occasion exceed the costs.” Adler, 758 F.3d at 739 (Sutton, J.,\nconcurring).\n\n Certification of a claim under Rule 54(b) has two steps. “First, the district court must\nexpressly direct the entry of final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all the claims or\nparties in a case. Second, the district court must expressly determine that there is no just reason\nto delay appellate review.” Gen. Acquisition, Inc. v. GenCorp, Inc., 23 F.3d 1022, 1026 (6th Cir.\n1994) (cleaned up). “We review de novo the district court’s conclusions on the first inquiry and\nfor abuse of discretion the district court’s finding of no just reason for delay.” EJS Props., LLC\nv. City of Toledo, 689 F.3d 535, 537 (6th Cir. 2012).\n\n A.\n\n Determining whether the district court “direct[ed] entry of a final judgment as to one or\nmore, but fewer than all, claims” is trickier than it sounds, because in this context, “claim” is a\nterm of art. As the district court explained, the parties’ “dispute centers on whether the contract\nclaims and the TILA claim should be considered a single ‘claim.’” Early Access Litig., 2018\nWL 1521771, at *2. Here we apply the “operative facts” test, which defines a “‘claim’ under\nRule 54(b) ‘[as] the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the\ncourts’ even if the party has raised different theories of relief.” Olin Corp., 390 F.3d at 442\n(quoting Gen. Acquisition, 23 F.3d at 1028). In applying this test, we examine the causes of\naction as pleaded in the complaint and consider whether they “seek to recover for the same\nunderlying injury.” Lowery, 426 F.3d at 821. While remaining mindful that Rule 54(b)\nrepresents an exception to “the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals,” Sears,\nRoebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 438 (1956), this court has also cautioned against\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 9\n\n\napplying the operative facts test “too broadly,” Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Region v. DeWine,\n696 F.3d 490, 501 (6th Cir. 2012).\n\n Fifth Third chiefly relies on Lowery v. Federal Express Corp. in support of its argument\nthat the breach-of-contract and TILA counts represent a single “claim.” 426 F.3d 817. In that\ncase, we dismissed an appeal certified under Rule 54(b) where the two counts in question were\nfor breach of contract under Tennessee law and retaliation under Title VII. Id. at 821. After\nnoting that it is easy to imagine a case in which those two causes of action could involve separate\nlegal rights, the court found that, as pleaded, “both causes of action arose out of the same\naggregate of operative facts and seek to recover for the same underlying injury.” Id.\nSpecifically, “the contractual promise was that [the] plaintiff would not be retaliated against for\nfiling the grievance. That is, the alleged breach was the retaliation.” Id.\n\n This case is different in two critical respects. First, the TILA and breach-of-contract\ncounts stem from different acts or omissions of Fifth Third. In breach-of-contract actions, Ohio\nlaw requires, unsurprisingly, that a plaintiff prove a defendant’s breach. Samadder v. DMF of\nOhio, Inc., 798 N.E.2d 1141, 1147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). The complaint alleges that Fifth Third\nbreached by charging plaintiffs APRs higher than 120% on their Early Access Loans and by\nfailing to provide accurate APR summaries on plaintiffs’ monthly bank statements. TILA\n“requires creditors to provide borrowers with clear and accurate disclosures of terms dealing\nwith things like finance charges, annual percentage rates of interest, and the borrower’s rights.”\nBeach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412 (1998); see 15 U.S.C. § 1631. A cause of action\nunder TILA arises when a defendant fails to make these disclosures, Beach, 523 U.S. at 412, and\nplaintiffs’ complaint here alleges as much. Thus, “[t]he TILA claim does not involve the\nobligations created by the underlying contract.” Maddox v. Ky. Fin. Co., 736 F.2d 380, 382 (6th\nCir. 1984) (discussing Whigham v. Beneficial Fin. Co. of Fayetteville, 599 F.2d 1322 (4th Cir.\n1979)); see also Lea v. Buy Direct, L.L.C., 755 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 2014) (“TILA is a\ndisclosure law designed to protect consumers and does not implicate the duty of subsequent\nperformance on the relevant contract or contracts.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). While\nthe breach-of-contract claim focuses on the amount of money that Fifth Third charged plaintiffs,\nthe TILA claim is based on different conduct: failure to make required disclosures.\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 10\n\n\n Second, each count seeks to recover damages that stem from separate injuries. In a\nbreach-of-contract action under Ohio law, a plaintiff must prove “damages or loss resulting from\nthe breach,” Claris, Ltd. v. Hotel Dev. Servs., LLC, 104 N.E.3d 1076, 1083 (Ohio Ct. App.\n2018), and “the amount of damages awarded must correspond to injuries resulting from the\nbreach,” Textron Fin. Corp. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 684 N.E.2d 1261, 1266 (Ohio Ct. App.\n1996). But “[a] plaintiff in a TILA case need not prove that he or she suffered actual monetary\ndamages in order to recover the statutory damages and attorney’s fees.” Purtle v. Eldridge Auto\nSales, Inc., 91 F.3d 797, 800 (6th Cir. 1996). “Rather, the TILA claim enforces a federal policy\nregarding disclosure by invoking a penalty.” Maddox, 736 F.2d at 382. Plaintiffs’ complaint\ntracks these differences, requesting not only actual damages, but also statutory damages,\nattorney’s fees, and costs under TILA. In this way, the damages sought in each count are\ngrounded in different places.\n\n To be sure, each count is not entirely divorced from the other. For example, the\ncomplaint alleges that Fifth Third “breached the contract by failing to provide an accurate APR\nsummary for Early Access Loans on monthly bank statements.” Similarly, the TILA count\nalleges that Fifth Third “did not provide accurate and meaningful APR disclosures to Plaintiffs\nregarding Early Access Loans.” But claims can be separate for the purposes of Rule 54(b)\n“despite the presence of some overlap,” and under the operative facts test, the differences\nbetween plaintiffs’ TILA and breach-of-contract counts as pleaded “sufficiently outweigh what\nthey have in common.” DeWine, 696 F.3d at 502. “Because each count involves distinct facts\nrelating to separate injuries, each count is a separate claim for purposes of Rule 54(b).” Id.\n\n B.\n\n While Fifth Third challenges only the first part of the district court’s ruling on\ncertification, we must review the entire decision to determine whether this court has appellate\njurisdiction. See Lowery, 426 F.3d at 820. Determining whether there is no just reason for delay\nunder Rule 54(b) “requires the district court to balance the needs of the parties against the\ninterests of efficient case management.” Gen. Acquisition, 23 F.3d at 1027. This court has\nprovided the following, non-exhaustive list of factors that a district court should consider:\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 11\n\n\n (1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) the\n possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future\n developments in the district court; (3) the possibility that the reviewing court\n might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time; (4) the presence or\n absence of a claim or counterclaim which could result in set-off against the\n judgment sought to be made final; (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay,\n economic and solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial, frivolity of\n competing claims, expense and the like.\n\nId. at 1030 (quoting Corrosioneering, Inc. v. Thyssen Envtl. Sys., Inc., 807 F.2d 1279, 1283 (6th\nCir. 1986)).\n\n Here, the district court discussed each of the above factors, applied them to this case, and\ndetermined that they weighed in favor of certifying the breach-of-contract claim. Early Access\nLitig., 2018 WL 1521771, at *3. The court also addressed the miscellaneous factors, noting that\n“the possibility of settling a claim may tip the balance in favor of a partial final judgment under\nRule 54(b).” Id. (citing Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 n.2 (1980)).\nBecause plaintiffs had moved for reconsideration of the breach-of-contract claim’s dismissal—\nand had “remained steadfast in their position that this Court was incorrect in [that] ruling”—and\nin light of the extensive settlement discussions undertaken by the parties, the district court found\nthat “if a judgment on the breach of contract claims would facilitate the settlement of the case, it\nserves efficient judicial administration by conserving judicial time and limited litigation\nexpenses.” Id. Finally, the court explicitly found that there was “no just reason for delay.” Id.\n\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing these issues. It “explicitly\nweighed the non-exhaustive list of factors we have provided for determining whether to find just\nreason for delay” and reached a reasonable conclusion based on that analysis. DeWine, 696 F.3d\nat 503. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court’s certification under Rule 54(b) was\nproper, and we have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal.\n\n III.\n\n We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Kaminski v.\nCoulter, 865 F.3d 339, 344 (6th Cir. 2017). Accepting all allegations in the complaint as true,\nand drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor, Gavitt v. Born, 835 F.3d 623, 639–40\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 12\n\n\n(6th Cir. 2016), we “must determine whether the allegations plausibly state a claim for relief,”\nSegal v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., 581 F.3d 305, 308 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556\nU.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “However, ‘a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation’ need not\nbe accepted as true.” Kaminski, 865 F.3d at 344 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.\n544, 555 (2007)).\n\n “To establish a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a\ncontract, (2) performance by the plaintiff, (3) breach by the defendant, and (4) damages or loss\nresulting from the breach.” Claris, 104 N.E.3d at 1083. Under Ohio law, contract interpretation,\nincluding a determination as to whether a contract is ambiguous, is a question of law. Envision\nWaste Servs., LLC v. Cty. of Medina, 83 N.E.3d 270, 275 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). Courts should\ninterpret contracts “so as to carry out the intent of the parties, as that intent is evidenced by the\ncontractual language.” Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 71 N.E.3d 1010, 1012 (Ohio\n2016) (quoting Skivolocki v. E. Ohio Gas Co., 313 N.E.2d 374, 376 (Ohio 1974)). In doing so,\nwe examine the contract “as a whole” and attempt to “give effect to every provision.” Sunoco,\nInc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison Co., 953 N.E.2d 285, 292, 295 (Ohio 2011). “Common words . . .\nwill be given their ordinary meaning unless manifest absurdity results, or unless some other\nmeaning is clearly evidenced from the face or overall contents of the instrument. Technical\nterms will be given their technical meaning, unless a different intention is clearly expressed.”\nFoster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth., 678 N.E.2d 519,\n526 (Ohio 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n But if a contract’s “language is unclear, indefinite, and reasonably subject to dual\ninterpretations or is of such doubtful meaning that reasonable minds could disagree as to its\nmeaning,” then it is ambiguous as a matter of law. Cadle v. D’Amico, 66 N.E.3d 1184, 1188\n(Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If ambiguity exists . . . the meaning\nof a contract is a question of fact.” Books A Million, Inc. v. H & N Enters., Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d\n846, 854 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (citing Amstutz v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 26 N.E.2d 454 (Ohio\n1940)).\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 13\n\n\n A.\n\n Plaintiffs assert that Fifth Third breached the contract “by charging [them] APRs in\nexcess of 120% on Early Access Loans.”2 Fifth Third disagrees, contending that “[t]he agreed-\nupon meaning of the APR disclosure is set forth in the contract,” and Fifth Third’s conduct\nadhered to that definition. Thus, the meaning of the term “APR” is central to this dispute. As\ndiscussed above, the contract explains the term “APR” in two ways. First, it states that “APR is\na measure of the cost of credit, expressed as a yearly rate,” a verbatim recitation of the APR\ndefinition found in Regulation Z. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.14(a). Then, it explains that “[t]he\nAnnual Percentage Rate is calculated by dividing the transaction fee by the Advance amount and\nmultiplying the quotient by the number of statement cycles within a year. For example,\n$100 Advance with a $10 transaction fee = $10/$100 = 0.1% X 12 cycles = 120% APR.”\nPlaintiffs argue that these two definitions of the same key term are inconsistent because the\nactual formula does not produce an APR that is “expressed as a yearly rate.” Instead, it always\nproduces an APR of 120%, regardless of the length of the loan term, and, in this way, it is\nuntethered to a year or any other time period.\n\n Plaintiffs provide numerous examples comparing results from the contract’s APR\nformula with results from a different formula for calculating APR that is “expressed as a yearly\nrate.” Plaintiffs do not explicitly provide their alternate formula, but from the complaint’s\nexamples, it is easy to discern. Their formula (1) divides the finance charge by the principal loan\namount, (2) multiplies the quotient of that by the number of days in a year, (3) divides the\nproduct of that by the number of days in the loan term, and (4) multiplies the quotient of that by\n100 to get a percentage.3 The result is what the loan would look like if it were extrapolated to be\n\n\n 2As mentioned above, the complaint also alleges that Fifth Third “breached the contract by failing to\nprovide an accurate APR summary for Early Access Loans on monthly bank statements.” But plaintiffs’ briefs\nbarely mention the monthly statements and do not include any argument specific to them or that breach-of-contract\ntheory. “We have repeatedly held that a party forfeits any allegations that lack developed argument.” Jones Bros.,\nInc. v. Sec’y of Labor, 898 F.3d 669, 677 (6th Cir. 2018). To the extent that this alternate theory is a part of this\nappeal at all, plaintiffs have thus forfeited it.\n 3The Consumer Federation of America, which has filed an amicus brief in this case, includes a publication\non its web site that advocates using this formula in the context of payday loans. Arkansans Against Abusive Payday\nLending, How to Calculate the Interest Rate on Payday Loans, https://consumerfed.org/pdfs/AAAPL-How-to-\nCalculate-Interest-Rate.pdf (last visited Apr. 9, 2019).\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 14\n\n\nfor a term of one year, or “annualized,” and the cost of credit remained the same across that\nlonger term.\n\n For example, the complaint alleges that plaintiff “Fyock borrowed an Early Access Loan\nin the amount of $650.00 from her Early Access account. Fourteen days later . . . Fyock received\na direct deposit and Fifth Third debited $715.00 to repay this Early Access Loan. This resulted\nin an APR of approximately 260%.” Plugged into plaintiffs’ formula (and rounded to the\nhundredths place), the numbers look like this:\n\n 65\n × 365\n 650 × 100 = 260.71%\n 14\nWhat this result attempts to explain is that charging $65 to borrow $650 for fourteen days is the\ncost-of-credit equivalent of charging $1694.64 to borrow the same amount for a whole year. Of\ncourse, the terms of the Early Access program don’t allow a loan to be outstanding for that long,\nand even if they did, the “transaction fee” does not increase over time in the way that other types\nof lending charges, like compound interest, might. But APR and other required disclosures have\nvalue because they allow consumers “to compare more readily the various credit terms\navailable . . . and avoid the uninformed use of credit.” 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a). “Annualizing” the\ncost of credit is APR’s method of doing so.\n\n Returning to the above example from the complaint, calculating the APR using the\nformula provided in the contract yields a different result than plaintiffs’ formula:\n\n 65\n × 12 = 120%\n 650\nIn another example, “[plaintiff] McKinney borrowed an Early Access Loan in the amount of\n$200. Three days later . . . McKinney received a direct deposit and Fifth Third debited $220 to\nrepay that loan. This resulted in an APR of approximately 1,217% . . . .” Again, the numbers\nplug into plaintiffs’ formula thus:\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 15\n\n\n 20\n × 365\n 200 × 100 = 1216.67%\n 3\nUsing the formula in the contract yields a result different from the above, but identical to the\nresult from the first example:\n\n 20\n × 12 = 120%\n 200\nThis extreme example shows a tenfold difference in APR between the two formulas, with the\nAPR from the contract yielding a number that appears much more favorable to the consumer.\n\n But the formula from the contract can also result in a higher APR than the formula used\nby plaintiffs. If a customer borrowed $100 and a direct deposit never posted to his checking\naccount, Fifth Third would automatically deduct $110 thirty-five days later, resulting in APR of\nabout 104% using plaintiffs’ formula:\n\n 10\n × 365\n 100 × 100 = 104.29%\n 35\nMeanwhile, the contract’s formula yields the same result as before, this time, overstating the\nAPR compared to the other formula:\n\n 10\n × 12 = 120%\n 100\n B.\n\n These examples demonstrate that the contract’s formula for calculating APR is static, and\nalways the same regardless of the length of the loan. Loans with lengths of three, fourteen, and\nthirty-five days all receive APRs of 120%. Hence, any APR produced using the contract’s\nformula cannot be “expressed as a yearly rate.” Definitions for “yearly” include “pertaining to a\nyear or to each year” and “computed or determined by the year,” and the parties do not dispute\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 16\n\n\nthat the word is inextricably tied to a period of a time. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 2201\n(2001).\n\n In addition to providing an explicit definition, the contract contains other indications that\nthe APR is tied to a year’s time. First, the term “APR” itself includes the word “annual,” which\nis defined as “[o]ccurring once every year; yearly,” or “[o]f, relating to, or involving a period of\none year.” Black’s Law Dictionary 109 (10th ed. 2014). Its presence provides further support to\nthe contract’s promise that the APR would be “expressed as a yearly rate.” Of course, Fifth\nThird must include the term “annual percentage rate” in order to comply with TILA’s\nrequirements, but that does not mean that the word should be assigned any less meaning or\nimportance as a matter of contract interpretation. The contract does not inform customers that\nthis disclosure is mandatory either. To the contrary, it states that APR is included “so our\ncustomers can compare the cost of using this product against other forms of credit.” Second, the\ncontract’s formula includes as a factor “the number of statement cycles within a year.” This\ndetail is perhaps the most misleading of all, signaling to customers that the APR formula is\nsomehow tied to a yearly rate when it is not.\n\n The contract also includes a mathematical error in one of its examples explaining how the\nAPR formula works in practice. The Terms and Conditions document contains the following\nlanguage: “[f]or example, $100 Advance with a $10 transaction fee = $10/$100 = 0.1% X 12\ncycles = 120% APR.” But 10 divided by 100 equals 0.1, not 0.1% or 0.001 as it would be\nexpressed without a percentage sign. And 0.001 times 12 equals 0.012 or 1.2%, not 120% as the\nexample states. Fifth Third acknowledged the error at oral argument, but dismissed it as a “typo”\nstemming from “transposing from percentage to decimal points.” In any case, by describing\nAPR in another inconsistent way, this error adds to the uncertainty surrounding the contract’s\npurported meaning of the term.\n\n The contract thus provides multiple descriptions of “APR” that are inconsistent with one\nanother. What complicates things is that one is a definition while another is a formula; the two\nare naturally expressed in different ways. One might say, for example, that “compound interest”\nis defined as “interest paid on both the principal and the accrued interest.” Webster’s\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 17\n\n\nUnabridged Dictionary 420 (2001). But the method of calculating compound interest might look\nlike this4:\n\n 𝑟 𝑛𝑡\n 𝐴 = 𝑃 (1 + )\n 𝑛\n\nA reasonable person would recognize that the two don’t mean exactly the same thing, but would\nexpect them to be consistent. Here, there is no way for the contract’s definition of APR to be\nconsistent with the formula it provides.\n\n Fifth Third makes no attempt to explain how the contract’s method of calculating\nAPR can be “expressed as a yearly rate.” In fact, Fifth Third’s counsel confirmed at oral\nargument that the contract’s calculation of “APR has nothing to do with borrowing the money on\na yearly basis.” Instead, Fifth Third stresses that “the Early Access contract unambiguously\nprovided for a flat transaction fee of 10 percent” and that the “calculation of the APR merely\nreflected, and did not change, the flat transaction fee” Fifth Third asks us to conclude from these\npremises that the contract is unambiguous as a matter of law. But this interpretation would\nrequire us to ignore the contract’s definition of APR as “a measure of the cost of credit,\nexpressed as a yearly rate.” Because we must “give effect to every provision,” we cannot\nendorse an interpretation that would read language out of the contract entirely. Sunoco,\n953 N.E.2d at 295.\n\n C.\n\n No interpretation of the contract can give effect to one definition that specifies that APR\nis “expressed as a yearly rate” while also giving effect to a formula that precludes such an\nexpression. Because the term “APR” as it appears in the contract is “reasonably susceptible of\nmore than one interpretation,” it is ambiguous as a matter of law. Santana v. Auto Owners Ins.\nCo., 632 N.E.2d 1308, 1313 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). And because “the meaning of the ambiguous\nlanguage is a question of fact,” SPG, Inc. v. First St. Dev., L.L.C., 64 N.E.3d 340, 347 (Ohio Ct.\nApp. 2016), it should, “in the first instance, be decided by the district court,” Roth Steel Prods. v.\n\n 4See Compound Interest Calculator, https://www.calculator net/compound-interest-calculator html (last\nvisited Apr. 9, 2019).\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 18\n\n\nSharon Steel Corp., 705 F.2d 134, 153–54 (6th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we do not address the\nparties’ arguments concerning latent ambiguity and other factual issues. We also decline to\nconsider the parties’ numerous arguments based on TILA and Regulation Z. That claim is not\nbefore us and we take no position as to its merits.\n\n IV.\n\n For these reasons, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\n\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 19\n\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: In RE: FIFTH THIRD EARLY ACCESS CASH ADVANCE LITIGATION. Lori Laskaris; Daniel Laskaris; Jessie McQuillen; Brian C. Harrison ; Janet Fyock; William R. Klopfenstein; Adam McKinney ; Donald E. Adanich; Lyn A. Adanich; Scott D. Little ; Diana Horn, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Fifth Third Bank, Defendant-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-28\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0105p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n IN RE: FIFTH THIRD EARLY ACCESS CASH ADVANCE ┐\\n LITIGATION. │\\n ___________________________________________ │\\n │\\n LORI LASKARIS; DANIEL LASKARIS; JESSIE │\\n MCQUILLEN; BRIAN C. HARRISON; JANET FYOCK; > No. 18-3390\\n WILLIAM R. KLOPFENSTEIN; ADAM MCKINNEY; │\\n DONALD E. ADANICH; LYN A. ADANICH; SCOTT D. │\\n LITTLE; DIANA HORN, on behalf of themselves and all │\\n others similarly situated, │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. │\\n │\\n FIFTH THIRD BANK, │\\n │\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.\\n No. 1:12-cv-00851—Michael R. Barrett, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: January 29, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 28, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Rachel Bloomekatz, GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.\\nDaniel R. Warren, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:\\nRachel Bloomekatz, GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C., Hassan A. Zavareei, Anna\\nC. Haac, TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, Washington, D.C., Stuart E. Scott, SPANGENBERG\\nSHIBLEY & LIBER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, Jason K. Whittemore, WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN,\\nTampa, Florida, for Appellants. Daniel R. Warren, Brett A. Wall, G. Karl Fanter, BAKER &\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 2\\n\\n\\nHOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. J. Carl Cecere, CECERE PC, Dallas, Texas,\\nfor Amicus Curiae.\\n\\n GRIFFIN, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SUTTON, J., joined, and\\nLARSEN, J., joined in part. LARSEN, J. (pg. 19), delivered a separate opinion concurring in\\npart and dissenting in part.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.\\n\\n This putative class action concerns defendant Fifth Third Bank’s “Early Access” cash\\nadvance loan program, a short-term lending option the bank offered to certain customers who\\nheld eligible checking accounts with it. Fifth Third, as both lender and bank, had direct access to\\nborrowers’ checking accounts. It deposited Early Access loans straight into borrowers’ accounts\\nand then paid itself back automatically—plus a 10% “transaction fee”—after a direct deposit\\nposted or thirty-five days elapsed, whichever came first. The contract governing the program\\ndisclosed the annual percentage rate (“APR”) as 120% in all cases.\\n\\n Plaintiffs held checking accounts with Fifth Third and obtained Early Access loans,\\nwhich were paid back automatically fewer than thirty days later. They contend that the 120%\\nfigure is false and misleading, pointing to the contract’s novel method for calculating APR—one\\nin which the APR is always the same regardless of the length of the loan. Calculated using a\\nmore conventional method, in which the APR is tied to the length of the loan, plaintiffs assert\\nthat the APR was in fact as high as 3650%.\\n\\n Plaintiffs brought a variety of state and federal claims below, but this appeal is limited to\\na single breach-of-contract claim under Ohio law. The district court granted Fifth Third’s Rule\\n12(b)(6) motion in relevant part and dismissed the breach-of-contract claim, holding that the\\ncontract unambiguously disclosed the method for calculating APR despite admitting that the\\nresult “may be misleading.” On review, we hold that the contract was ambiguous because it\\nprovided two different descriptions of “APR” that are inconsistent with each other and cannot be\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 3\\n\\n\\nreconciled. The first was a definition, lifted verbatim from a federal regulation, that describes\\nthe APR as being “expressed as a yearly rate”; the second was the method used to calculate it,\\nwhich is not based on a year or any other time period. The ambiguity raises a question of fact\\nthat should be resolved in the district court on remand.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n Fifth Third is a state-chartered, federally insured bank headquartered in Ohio, with\\nbranches in several states, including Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. “Early Access”\\nwas a short-term “cash advance” program in which eligible customers who held checking\\naccounts with Fifth Third could obtain a loan up to $1000 deposited directly into their accounts.\\nPlaintiffs describe Early Access as a type of “payday” loan: a “small loan[] due on the\\nborrower’s next ‘payday.’” Fifth Third disputes this characterization, but admitted in the\\nprogram’s terms and conditions that Early Access “is an expensive form of credit . . . designed to\\nhelp our customers meet their short-term borrowing needs . . . . We do not recommend\\ncontinued use of the service.”\\n\\n Early Access was different in that Fifth Third, the lender, also had access to its\\ncustomers’ checking accounts. When a customer requested a cash advance, Fifth Third\\ndeposited the amount into that individual’s checking account. When a customer later received a\\ndirect deposit of $100 or more, Fifth Third automatically deducted the amount of the loan from\\nthe account, plus a “transaction fee” equal to 10% of the loan’s amount. Fifth Third did this even\\nif the deduction resulted in a negative balance on the account, though it did not charge an\\noverdraft fee for this transaction. Customers also had the option of making manual payments. If\\nthe loan had not been repaid in full after thirty-five days, Fifth Third automatically deducted the\\noutstanding balance and the loan’s transaction fee from the account, even if no qualifying direct\\ndeposit had posted. Thus, the term of the loan was always thirty-five days or shorter.\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 4\\n\\n\\n Two documents explained the contours of the Early Access program: the “Summary of\\nKey Features and Terms & Conditions” and the “Frequently Asked Questions,” which were\\nincorporated into the terms and conditions by reference (collectively, “the contract”). According\\nto plaintiffs, the contract here was one of adhesion, as it was “drafted and imposed by Fifth\\nThird” and “presented to . . . customers on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis.” The contract explained\\nthat “there is no interest charge associated with an Advance,” and customers are charged the\\nsame 10% transaction fee regardless of the length of the term. It included several examples of\\nhow this works in practice, including this one:\\n\\n Lee Advanced multiple times in the week leading up to payday. She Advanced\\n $20 two times on Monday, $20 on Tuesday, and $40 on Thursday, for a total of\\n $100 in Fifth Third Early Access Advances prior to her next qualifying direct\\n deposit. When Lee receives her next qualifying direct deposit, the bank will\\n withdraw $110 as payment from her Associated Checking Account ($100 in Fifth\\n Third Early Access Advances and $10 in corresponding transaction fees).\\nIn several places, the contract discussed the Early Access program’s “annual percentage rate”\\n(“APR”). This term is familiar to many consumers and widespread across the financial sector,\\nundoubtedly because the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and\\nfederal regulations “require[] lenders to make certain prominent disclosures when extending\\ncredit, including the APR.” Rucker v. Sheehy Alexandria, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 618, 622 (E.D.\\nVa. 2003); see Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.1 et seq. TILA\\nspecifically requires that lenders use the term “annual percentage rate.” 15 U.S.C. § 1638(a)(4).\\nOne regulation defines “annual percentage rate [a]s a measure of the cost of credit, expressed as\\na yearly rate.” 12 C.F.R. § 226.14(a). Another provides a bit more detail: “[t]he annual\\npercentage rate is a measure of the cost of credit, expressed as a yearly rate, that relates the\\namount and timing of value received by the consumer to the amount and timing of payments\\nmade.” 12 C.F.R. § 1026.22(a)(1).\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 5\\n\\n\\n The contract described the APR for the Early Access program as follows:\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe 120% APR also appeared on the monthly bank statements Fifth Third provided to its\\ncustomers. After clarifying its use of “APR” as an abbreviation for “Annual Percentage Rate,”\\nthe contract explained that “[t]he APR is a measure of the cost of credit, expressed as a yearly\\nrate.” It also stated that “[w]e show the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) for Fifth Third Early\\nAccess so our customers can compare the cost of using this product against other forms of\\ncredit.” But the formula it provided for calculating APR is unique, arrived at by “dividing the\\ntransaction fee by the Advance amount and multiplying the quotient by the number of statement\\ncycles within a year. For example, $100 Advance with a $10 transaction fee = $10/$100 = 0.1%\\nX 12 cycles = 120% APR.” The result is that the APR calculated this way is always 120%,\\nregardless of the length of the loan.\\n\\n Plaintiffs all held checking accounts with Fifth Third, sought and obtained loans through\\nthe Early Access program, and paid back their loans fewer than thirty days after receiving\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 6\\n\\n\\nthem—usually by automatic deduction when a direct deposit posted to their accounts. They\\ncontend that Fifth Third’s disclosure of 120% APR is false and misleading because “Early\\nAccess Loans carry a 120% APR only when repaid in [exactly] 30 days,” and in practice, the\\nAPR is usually much higher, with an upper limit of 3650%. Plaintiffs assert that Fifth Third “has\\nmade up a formula that always yields 120% and calls it the ‘APR,’ even though the 120%\\nnumber is completely arbitrary and bears no relation to the annual cost of the Early Access\\ncredit.” They essentially accuse Fifth Third of running a “bait and switch” scheme, suggesting\\nthat the listed APR is comparable to APRs shown by other lenders before changing the meaning\\nof “APR” in the contract to make its terms appear more favorable than they are. Similarly, amici\\nargue that the contract’s APR is not really an APR at all, because “a true APR must be tied to the\\nactual length of time the loan balance is outstanding.”\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Plaintiffs William R. Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a complaint against Fifth\\nThird in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Their case was\\neventually transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated, pursuant to Federal\\nRule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2), with four other cases that also originated elsewhere. Plaintiffs’\\npost-consolidation amended complaint asserted eighteen causes of action, some on behalf of the\\nentire proposed class and others on behalf of proposed state-specific subclasses. Relevant to this\\nappeal, Count One pleaded violations of TILA and Regulation Z, and Count Four pleaded breach\\nof contract.1 Specifically, Count Four alleged that Fifth Third breached the terms of the Early\\nAccess Loans contract “by charging Plaintiffs and the other Class members APRs in excess of\\n120% on Early Access Loans,” and “by failing to provide an accurate APR summary for Early\\nAccess Loans on monthly bank statements.”\\n\\n Fifth Third moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n12(b)(6). The district court granted Fifth Third’s motion in part and dismissed every claim\\nexcept Count One. Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 1:12-cv-851, 2015 WL 1468382, at *1\\n(S.D. Ohio Mar. 30, 2015). In its brief discussion of the breach-of-contract claim, the court\\n\\n 1While the complaint did not specify in which state’s laws it bases the breach-of-contract claim, the\\ncontract’s choice-of-law provision makes clear that Ohio law applies.\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 7\\n\\n\\nnoted that the APR provision “may be misleading because not every transaction is paid in twelve\\ncycles,” but concluded that the contract was “unambiguous in [its] explanation as to the method\\nfor calculating the APR.” Id. at *7. Because plaintiffs did not dispute that they were charged the\\n10% transaction fee regardless of the length of their loans, the district court found that no breach\\noccurred and dismissed the claim. Id.\\n\\n Plaintiffs sought reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). After\\nholding a status conference and discussing a possible settlement agreement with the parties, the\\ncourt denied the motion as moot, subject to refiling. The parties then engaged in discovery and\\n“extensive [c]ourt-mediated settlement discussions.” In re Fifth Third Early Access Cash\\nAdvance Litig., No. 1:12-cv-851, 2018 WL 1521771, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2018). The\\nparties also entered into a “preliminary Memorandum of Understanding” to settle the case. Id.\\nOnce discovery revealed that the contract claim’s damages were much higher than expected—\\nand “exponentially higher than the potential TILA damages due to TILA’s statutory caps”—\\nsettlement negotiations stalled and the parties were ultimately unable to reach an agreement. Id.\\n\\n Plaintiffs then moved for the entry of a final judgment with respect to only the dismissed\\nbreach-of-contract claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). This rule “permits\\nimmediate appellate review of a district court’s judgment even though the lawsuit contains\\nunresolved claims.” GenCorp, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 390 F.3d 433, 442 (6th Cir. 2004). Fifth Third\\nopposed the motion. After finding that the TILA and breach-of-contract counts were sufficiently\\ndistinct, and that there was no just reason for delay, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion,\\ncertified the breach-of-contract claim for entry of a final judgment, and stayed the rest of the case\\npending appeal. Early Access Litig., 2018 WL 1521771, at *2–4.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Fifth Third argues that the district court improperly certified the dismissed breach-of-\\ncontract claim as a final judgment under Rule 54(b). If Fifth Third is correct, then this court\\nlacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this appeal. Lowery v. Fed. Express Corp., 426 F.3d\\n817, 820 (6th Cir. 2005). Appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 is limited to “final\\ndecisions” and, “[f]or the most part, a district court’s decision counts as ‘final’ only if it takes\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 8\\n\\n\\ncare of all claims and all parties in the case.” Adler v. Elk Glenn, LLC, 758 F.3d 737, 739 (6th\\nCir. 2014) (Sutton, J., concurring). If a case involves multiple claims or parties, however, a\\ndistrict court may “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims\\nor parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R.\\nCiv. P. 54(b). Rule 54(b) thus allows immediate appellate review of some claims while the rest\\nof the case remains in the district court. “This exception pays tribute to the reality that the\\nbenefits of immediate appeals on occasion exceed the costs.” Adler, 758 F.3d at 739 (Sutton, J.,\\nconcurring).\\n\\n Certification of a claim under Rule 54(b) has two steps. “First, the district court must\\nexpressly direct the entry of final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all the claims or\\nparties in a case. Second, the district court must expressly determine that there is no just reason\\nto delay appellate review.” Gen. Acquisition, Inc. v. GenCorp, Inc., 23 F.3d 1022, 1026 (6th Cir.\\n1994) (cleaned up). “We review de novo the district court’s conclusions on the first inquiry and\\nfor abuse of discretion the district court’s finding of no just reason for delay.” EJS Props., LLC\\nv. City of Toledo, 689 F.3d 535, 537 (6th Cir. 2012).\\n\\n A.\\n\\n Determining whether the district court “direct[ed] entry of a final judgment as to one or\\nmore, but fewer than all, claims” is trickier than it sounds, because in this context, “claim” is a\\nterm of art. As the district court explained, the parties’ “dispute centers on whether the contract\\nclaims and the TILA claim should be considered a single ‘claim.’” Early Access Litig., 2018\\nWL 1521771, at *2. Here we apply the “operative facts” test, which defines a “‘claim’ under\\nRule 54(b) ‘[as] the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the\\ncourts’ even if the party has raised different theories of relief.” Olin Corp., 390 F.3d at 442\\n(quoting Gen. Acquisition, 23 F.3d at 1028). In applying this test, we examine the causes of\\naction as pleaded in the complaint and consider whether they “seek to recover for the same\\nunderlying injury.” Lowery, 426 F.3d at 821. While remaining mindful that Rule 54(b)\\nrepresents an exception to “the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals,” Sears,\\nRoebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 438 (1956), this court has also cautioned against\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 9\\n\\n\\napplying the operative facts test “too broadly,” Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Region v. DeWine,\\n696 F.3d 490, 501 (6th Cir. 2012).\\n\\n Fifth Third chiefly relies on Lowery v. Federal Express Corp. in support of its argument\\nthat the breach-of-contract and TILA counts represent a single “claim.” 426 F.3d 817. In that\\ncase, we dismissed an appeal certified under Rule 54(b) where the two counts in question were\\nfor breach of contract under Tennessee law and retaliation under Title VII. Id. at 821. After\\nnoting that it is easy to imagine a case in which those two causes of action could involve separate\\nlegal rights, the court found that, as pleaded, “both causes of action arose out of the same\\naggregate of operative facts and seek to recover for the same underlying injury.” Id.\\nSpecifically, “the contractual promise was that [the] plaintiff would not be retaliated against for\\nfiling the grievance. That is, the alleged breach was the retaliation.” Id.\\n\\n This case is different in two critical respects. First, the TILA and breach-of-contract\\ncounts stem from different acts or omissions of Fifth Third. In breach-of-contract actions, Ohio\\nlaw requires, unsurprisingly, that a plaintiff prove a defendant’s breach. Samadder v. DMF of\\nOhio, Inc., 798 N.E.2d 1141, 1147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). The complaint alleges that Fifth Third\\nbreached by charging plaintiffs APRs higher than 120% on their Early Access Loans and by\\nfailing to provide accurate APR summaries on plaintiffs’ monthly bank statements. TILA\\n“requires creditors to provide borrowers with clear and accurate disclosures of terms dealing\\nwith things like finance charges, annual percentage rates of interest, and the borrower’s rights.”\\nBeach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412 (1998); see 15 U.S.C. § 1631. A cause of action\\nunder TILA arises when a defendant fails to make these disclosures, Beach, 523 U.S. at 412, and\\nplaintiffs’ complaint here alleges as much. Thus, “[t]he TILA claim does not involve the\\nobligations created by the underlying contract.” Maddox v. Ky. Fin. Co., 736 F.2d 380, 382 (6th\\nCir. 1984) (discussing Whigham v. Beneficial Fin. Co. of Fayetteville, 599 F.2d 1322 (4th Cir.\\n1979)); see also Lea v. Buy Direct, L.L.C., 755 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 2014) (“TILA is a\\ndisclosure law designed to protect consumers and does not implicate the duty of subsequent\\nperformance on the relevant contract or contracts.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). While\\nthe breach-of-contract claim focuses on the amount of money that Fifth Third charged plaintiffs,\\nthe TILA claim is based on different conduct: failure to make required disclosures.\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 10\\n\\n\\n Second, each count seeks to recover damages that stem from separate injuries. In a\\nbreach-of-contract action under Ohio law, a plaintiff must prove “damages or loss resulting from\\nthe breach,” Claris, Ltd. v. Hotel Dev. Servs., LLC, 104 N.E.3d 1076, 1083 (Ohio Ct. App.\\n2018), and “the amount of damages awarded must correspond to injuries resulting from the\\nbreach,” Textron Fin. Corp. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 684 N.E.2d 1261, 1266 (Ohio Ct. App.\\n1996). But “[a] plaintiff in a TILA case need not prove that he or she suffered actual monetary\\ndamages in order to recover the statutory damages and attorney’s fees.” Purtle v. Eldridge Auto\\nSales, Inc., 91 F.3d 797, 800 (6th Cir. 1996). “Rather, the TILA claim enforces a federal policy\\nregarding disclosure by invoking a penalty.” Maddox, 736 F.2d at 382. Plaintiffs’ complaint\\ntracks these differences, requesting not only actual damages, but also statutory damages,\\nattorney’s fees, and costs under TILA. In this way, the damages sought in each count are\\ngrounded in different places.\\n\\n To be sure, each count is not entirely divorced from the other. For example, the\\ncomplaint alleges that Fifth Third “breached the contract by failing to provide an accurate APR\\nsummary for Early Access Loans on monthly bank statements.” Similarly, the TILA count\\nalleges that Fifth Third “did not provide accurate and meaningful APR disclosures to Plaintiffs\\nregarding Early Access Loans.” But claims can be separate for the purposes of Rule 54(b)\\n“despite the presence of some overlap,” and under the operative facts test, the differences\\nbetween plaintiffs’ TILA and breach-of-contract counts as pleaded “sufficiently outweigh what\\nthey have in common.” DeWine, 696 F.3d at 502. “Because each count involves distinct facts\\nrelating to separate injuries, each count is a separate claim for purposes of Rule 54(b).” Id.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n While Fifth Third challenges only the first part of the district court’s ruling on\\ncertification, we must review the entire decision to determine whether this court has appellate\\njurisdiction. See Lowery, 426 F.3d at 820. Determining whether there is no just reason for delay\\nunder Rule 54(b) “requires the district court to balance the needs of the parties against the\\ninterests of efficient case management.” Gen. Acquisition, 23 F.3d at 1027. This court has\\nprovided the following, non-exhaustive list of factors that a district court should consider:\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 11\\n\\n\\n (1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) the\\n possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future\\n developments in the district court; (3) the possibility that the reviewing court\\n might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time; (4) the presence or\\n absence of a claim or counterclaim which could result in set-off against the\\n judgment sought to be made final; (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay,\\n economic and solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial, frivolity of\\n competing claims, expense and the like.\\n\\nId. at 1030 (quoting Corrosioneering, Inc. v. Thyssen Envtl. Sys., Inc., 807 F.2d 1279, 1283 (6th\\nCir. 1986)).\\n\\n Here, the district court discussed each of the above factors, applied them to this case, and\\ndetermined that they weighed in favor of certifying the breach-of-contract claim. Early Access\\nLitig., 2018 WL 1521771, at *3. The court also addressed the miscellaneous factors, noting that\\n“the possibility of settling a claim may tip the balance in favor of a partial final judgment under\\nRule 54(b).” Id. (citing Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 n.2 (1980)).\\nBecause plaintiffs had moved for reconsideration of the breach-of-contract claim’s dismissal—\\nand had “remained steadfast in their position that this Court was incorrect in [that] ruling”—and\\nin light of the extensive settlement discussions undertaken by the parties, the district court found\\nthat “if a judgment on the breach of contract claims would facilitate the settlement of the case, it\\nserves efficient judicial administration by conserving judicial time and limited litigation\\nexpenses.” Id. Finally, the court explicitly found that there was “no just reason for delay.” Id.\\n\\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing these issues. It “explicitly\\nweighed the non-exhaustive list of factors we have provided for determining whether to find just\\nreason for delay” and reached a reasonable conclusion based on that analysis. DeWine, 696 F.3d\\nat 503. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court’s certification under Rule 54(b) was\\nproper, and we have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Kaminski v.\\nCoulter, 865 F.3d 339, 344 (6th Cir. 2017). Accepting all allegations in the complaint as true,\\nand drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor, Gavitt v. Born, 835 F.3d 623, 639–40\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 12\\n\\n\\n(6th Cir. 2016), we “must determine whether the allegations plausibly state a claim for relief,”\\nSegal v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., 581 F.3d 305, 308 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556\\nU.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “However, ‘a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation’ need not\\nbe accepted as true.” Kaminski, 865 F.3d at 344 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.\\n544, 555 (2007)).\\n\\n “To establish a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a\\ncontract, (2) performance by the plaintiff, (3) breach by the defendant, and (4) damages or loss\\nresulting from the breach.” Claris, 104 N.E.3d at 1083. Under Ohio law, contract interpretation,\\nincluding a determination as to whether a contract is ambiguous, is a question of law. Envision\\nWaste Servs., LLC v. Cty. of Medina, 83 N.E.3d 270, 275 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). Courts should\\ninterpret contracts “so as to carry out the intent of the parties, as that intent is evidenced by the\\ncontractual language.” Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 71 N.E.3d 1010, 1012 (Ohio\\n2016) (quoting Skivolocki v. E. Ohio Gas Co., 313 N.E.2d 374, 376 (Ohio 1974)). In doing so,\\nwe examine the contract “as a whole” and attempt to “give effect to every provision.” Sunoco,\\nInc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison Co., 953 N.E.2d 285, 292, 295 (Ohio 2011). “Common words . . .\\nwill be given their ordinary meaning unless manifest absurdity results, or unless some other\\nmeaning is clearly evidenced from the face or overall contents of the instrument. Technical\\nterms will be given their technical meaning, unless a different intention is clearly expressed.”\\nFoster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth., 678 N.E.2d 519,\\n526 (Ohio 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\\n\\n But if a contract’s “language is unclear, indefinite, and reasonably subject to dual\\ninterpretations or is of such doubtful meaning that reasonable minds could disagree as to its\\nmeaning,” then it is ambiguous as a matter of law. Cadle v. D’Amico, 66 N.E.3d 1184, 1188\\n(Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If ambiguity exists . . . the meaning\\nof a contract is a question of fact.” Books A Million, Inc. v. H & N Enters., Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d\\n846, 854 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (citing Amstutz v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 26 N.E.2d 454 (Ohio\\n1940)).\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 13\\n\\n\\n A.\\n\\n Plaintiffs assert that Fifth Third breached the contract “by charging [them] APRs in\\nexcess of 120% on Early Access Loans.”2 Fifth Third disagrees, contending that “[t]he agreed-\\nupon meaning of the APR disclosure is set forth in the contract,” and Fifth Third’s conduct\\nadhered to that definition. Thus, the meaning of the term “APR” is central to this dispute. As\\ndiscussed above, the contract explains the term “APR” in two ways. First, it states that “APR is\\na measure of the cost of credit, expressed as a yearly rate,” a verbatim recitation of the APR\\ndefinition found in Regulation Z. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.14(a). Then, it explains that “[t]he\\nAnnual Percentage Rate is calculated by dividing the transaction fee by the Advance amount and\\nmultiplying the quotient by the number of statement cycles within a year. For example,\\n$100 Advance with a $10 transaction fee = $10/$100 = 0.1% X 12 cycles = 120% APR.”\\nPlaintiffs argue that these two definitions of the same key term are inconsistent because the\\nactual formula does not produce an APR that is “expressed as a yearly rate.” Instead, it always\\nproduces an APR of 120%, regardless of the length of the loan term, and, in this way, it is\\nuntethered to a year or any other time period.\\n\\n Plaintiffs provide numerous examples comparing results from the contract’s APR\\nformula with results from a different formula for calculating APR that is “expressed as a yearly\\nrate.” Plaintiffs do not explicitly provide their alternate formula, but from the complaint’s\\nexamples, it is easy to discern. Their formula (1) divides the finance charge by the principal loan\\namount, (2) multiplies the quotient of that by the number of days in a year, (3) divides the\\nproduct of that by the number of days in the loan term, and (4) multiplies the quotient of that by\\n100 to get a percentage.3 The result is what the loan would look like if it were extrapolated to be\\n\\n\\n 2As mentioned above, the complaint also alleges that Fifth Third “breached the contract by failing to\\nprovide an accurate APR summary for Early Access Loans on monthly bank statements.” But plaintiffs’ briefs\\nbarely mention the monthly statements and do not include any argument specific to them or that breach-of-contract\\ntheory. “We have repeatedly held that a party forfeits any allegations that lack developed argument.” Jones Bros.,\\nInc. v. Sec’y of Labor, 898 F.3d 669, 677 (6th Cir. 2018). To the extent that this alternate theory is a part of this\\nappeal at all, plaintiffs have thus forfeited it.\\n 3The Consumer Federation of America, which has filed an amicus brief in this case, includes a publication\\non its web site that advocates using this formula in the context of payday loans. Arkansans Against Abusive Payday\\nLending, How to Calculate the Interest Rate on Payday Loans, https://consumerfed.org/pdfs/AAAPL-How-to-\\nCalculate-Interest-Rate.pdf (last visited Apr. 9, 2019).\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 14\\n\\n\\nfor a term of one year, or “annualized,” and the cost of credit remained the same across that\\nlonger term.\\n\\n For example, the complaint alleges that plaintiff “Fyock borrowed an Early Access Loan\\nin the amount of $650.00 from her Early Access account. Fourteen days later . . . Fyock received\\na direct deposit and Fifth Third debited $715.00 to repay this Early Access Loan. This resulted\\nin an APR of approximately 260%.” Plugged into plaintiffs’ formula (and rounded to the\\nhundredths place), the numbers look like this:\\n\\n 65\\n × 365\\n 650 × 100 = 260.71%\\n 14\\nWhat this result attempts to explain is that charging $65 to borrow $650 for fourteen days is the\\ncost-of-credit equivalent of charging $1694.64 to borrow the same amount for a whole year. Of\\ncourse, the terms of the Early Access program don’t allow a loan to be outstanding for that long,\\nand even if they did, the “transaction fee” does not increase over time in the way that other types\\nof lending charges, like compound interest, might. But APR and other required disclosures have\\nvalue because they allow consumers “to compare more readily the various credit terms\\navailable . . . and avoid the uninformed use of credit.” 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a). “Annualizing” the\\ncost of credit is APR’s method of doing so.\\n\\n Returning to the above example from the complaint, calculating the APR using the\\nformula provided in the contract yields a different result than plaintiffs’ formula:\\n\\n 65\\n × 12 = 120%\\n 650\\nIn another example, “[plaintiff] McKinney borrowed an Early Access Loan in the amount of\\n$200. Three days later . . . McKinney received a direct deposit and Fifth Third debited $220 to\\nrepay that loan. This resulted in an APR of approximately 1,217% . . . .” Again, the numbers\\nplug into plaintiffs’ formula thus:\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 15\\n\\n\\n 20\\n × 365\\n 200 × 100 = 1216.67%\\n 3\\nUsing the formula in the contract yields a result different from the above, but identical to the\\nresult from the first example:\\n\\n 20\\n × 12 = 120%\\n 200\\nThis extreme example shows a tenfold difference in APR between the two formulas, with the\\nAPR from the contract yielding a number that appears much more favorable to the consumer.\\n\\n But the formula from the contract can also result in a higher APR than the formula used\\nby plaintiffs. If a customer borrowed $100 and a direct deposit never posted to his checking\\naccount, Fifth Third would automatically deduct $110 thirty-five days later, resulting in APR of\\nabout 104% using plaintiffs’ formula:\\n\\n 10\\n × 365\\n 100 × 100 = 104.29%\\n 35\\nMeanwhile, the contract’s formula yields the same result as before, this time, overstating the\\nAPR compared to the other formula:\\n\\n 10\\n × 12 = 120%\\n 100\\n B.\\n\\n These examples demonstrate that the contract’s formula for calculating APR is static, and\\nalways the same regardless of the length of the loan. Loans with lengths of three, fourteen, and\\nthirty-five days all receive APRs of 120%. Hence, any APR produced using the contract’s\\nformula cannot be “expressed as a yearly rate.” Definitions for “yearly” include “pertaining to a\\nyear or to each year” and “computed or determined by the year,” and the parties do not dispute\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 16\\n\\n\\nthat the word is inextricably tied to a period of a time. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 2201\\n(2001).\\n\\n In addition to providing an explicit definition, the contract contains other indications that\\nthe APR is tied to a year’s time. First, the term “APR” itself includes the word “annual,” which\\nis defined as “[o]ccurring once every year; yearly,” or “[o]f, relating to, or involving a period of\\none year.” Black’s Law Dictionary 109 (10th ed. 2014). Its presence provides further support to\\nthe contract’s promise that the APR would be “expressed as a yearly rate.” Of course, Fifth\\nThird must include the term “annual percentage rate” in order to comply with TILA’s\\nrequirements, but that does not mean that the word should be assigned any less meaning or\\nimportance as a matter of contract interpretation. The contract does not inform customers that\\nthis disclosure is mandatory either. To the contrary, it states that APR is included “so our\\ncustomers can compare the cost of using this product against other forms of credit.” Second, the\\ncontract’s formula includes as a factor “the number of statement cycles within a year.” This\\ndetail is perhaps the most misleading of all, signaling to customers that the APR formula is\\nsomehow tied to a yearly rate when it is not.\\n\\n The contract also includes a mathematical error in one of its examples explaining how the\\nAPR formula works in practice. The Terms and Conditions document contains the following\\nlanguage: “[f]or example, $100 Advance with a $10 transaction fee = $10/$100 = 0.1% X 12\\ncycles = 120% APR.” But 10 divided by 100 equals 0.1, not 0.1% or 0.001 as it would be\\nexpressed without a percentage sign. And 0.001 times 12 equals 0.012 or 1.2%, not 120% as the\\nexample states. Fifth Third acknowledged the error at oral argument, but dismissed it as a “typo”\\nstemming from “transposing from percentage to decimal points.” In any case, by describing\\nAPR in another inconsistent way, this error adds to the uncertainty surrounding the contract’s\\npurported meaning of the term.\\n\\n The contract thus provides multiple descriptions of “APR” that are inconsistent with one\\nanother. What complicates things is that one is a definition while another is a formula; the two\\nare naturally expressed in different ways. One might say, for example, that “compound interest”\\nis defined as “interest paid on both the principal and the accrued interest.” Webster’s\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 17\\n\\n\\nUnabridged Dictionary 420 (2001). But the method of calculating compound interest might look\\nlike this4:\\n\\n 𝑟 𝑛𝑡\\n 𝐴 = 𝑃 (1 + )\\n 𝑛\\n\\nA reasonable person would recognize that the two don’t mean exactly the same thing, but would\\nexpect them to be consistent. Here, there is no way for the contract’s definition of APR to be\\nconsistent with the formula it provides.\\n\\n Fifth Third makes no attempt to explain how the contract’s method of calculating\\nAPR can be “expressed as a yearly rate.” In fact, Fifth Third’s counsel confirmed at oral\\nargument that the contract’s calculation of “APR has nothing to do with borrowing the money on\\na yearly basis.” Instead, Fifth Third stresses that “the Early Access contract unambiguously\\nprovided for a flat transaction fee of 10 percent” and that the “calculation of the APR merely\\nreflected, and did not change, the flat transaction fee” Fifth Third asks us to conclude from these\\npremises that the contract is unambiguous as a matter of law. But this interpretation would\\nrequire us to ignore the contract’s definition of APR as “a measure of the cost of credit,\\nexpressed as a yearly rate.” Because we must “give effect to every provision,” we cannot\\nendorse an interpretation that would read language out of the contract entirely. Sunoco,\\n953 N.E.2d at 295.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n No interpretation of the contract can give effect to one definition that specifies that APR\\nis “expressed as a yearly rate” while also giving effect to a formula that precludes such an\\nexpression. Because the term “APR” as it appears in the contract is “reasonably susceptible of\\nmore than one interpretation,” it is ambiguous as a matter of law. Santana v. Auto Owners Ins.\\nCo., 632 N.E.2d 1308, 1313 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). And because “the meaning of the ambiguous\\nlanguage is a question of fact,” SPG, Inc. v. First St. Dev., L.L.C., 64 N.E.3d 340, 347 (Ohio Ct.\\nApp. 2016), it should, “in the first instance, be decided by the district court,” Roth Steel Prods. v.\\n\\n 4See Compound Interest Calculator, https://www.calculator net/compound-interest-calculator html (last\\nvisited Apr. 9, 2019).\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 18\\n\\n\\nSharon Steel Corp., 705 F.2d 134, 153–54 (6th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we do not address the\\nparties’ arguments concerning latent ambiguity and other factual issues. We also decline to\\nconsider the parties’ numerous arguments based on TILA and Regulation Z. That claim is not\\nbefore us and we take no position as to its merits.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n For these reasons, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n No. 18-3390 Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank Page 19\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2092,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4623791,"string":"4,623,791"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Joseph Lamont JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kevin GENOVESE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Joseph Johnson v. Kevin Genovese"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-28"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-5330"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"McKeague, Griffin, Nalbandian\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0104p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n JOSEPH LAMONT JOHNSON, JR., ┐\\n Petitioner-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5330\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n KEVIN GENOVESE, Warden, │\\n Respondent-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.\\n No. 3:14-cv-02305—Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: March 20, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 28, 2019\\n\\n Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Michael C. Holley, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Nashville, Tennessee, for\\nAppellant. John H. Bledsoe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee,\\nfor Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael C. Holley, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Nashville,\\nTennessee, for Appellant. Nicholas S. Bolduc, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,\\nNashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Petitioner Joseph Johnson was convicted of multiple felonies in Tennessee state court\\narising out of the robbery of a Nashville Taco Bell. He now seeks a writ of habeas corpus,\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 2\\n\\n\\narguing that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by his trial counsel’s deficient\\nperformance in the pretrial plea-negotiation phase of his state-court proceedings and that the\\nstate court’s opposite conclusion was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of\\nfederal law. The district court found no basis for habeas relief and, for the reasons that follow,\\nwe affirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n In November of 2003, petitioner and a friend robbed a Taco Bell of approximately $200\\nto $300. State v. Johnson, M2007-01644-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2567729 at *1–2 (Tenn. Crim.\\nApp. Aug. 18, 2009). Police captured them shortly thereafter. Id. at *3. Petitioner was indicted\\non four charges related to that robbery. Id. at *1. Attorney Paul Walwyn represented petitioner\\nfor pretrial and trial proceedings. A few days before trial began, the state offered a plea deal for\\npetitioner to plead guilty to all counts in exchange “for a 20 year sentence as a range two\\noffender.” He allegedly rejected that offer, though the parties debate some facts surrounding the\\nplea process.\\n\\n So he went to trial, where a Tennessee jury subsequently convicted him of all four\\ncharges: two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of\\nfelony evading arrest, though one aggravated-robbery conviction was later changed to\\naggravated assault due to double jeopardy concerns. Id. at *1, *5. The trial court sentenced him\\nto twenty-eight years’ imprisonment for aggravated robbery, eight years’ imprisonment for one\\nconviction of aggravated assault, ten years’ imprisonment on the other aggravated-assault\\nconviction, and eight years’ imprisonment for evading arrest, all to be served consecutively, for a\\ntotal of fifty-four years in prison. Id. On direct appeal, petitioner raised sufficiency-of-the-\\nevidence claims on all four convictions, challenges to his jury instructions, and challenges to his\\nsentences’ lengths and their consecutive nature. Id. at *5-19. The Tennessee Court of Criminal\\nAppeals (TCCA) affirmed, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied him permission to appeal.\\nSee id., perm. app. denied (Feb. 22, 2010).\\n\\n Petitioner then filed a timely motion for postconviction relief in state court. Among the\\nnumerous issues he raised was a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the plea-\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 3\\n\\n\\nnegotiation process. At an evidentiary hearing on the petition, he testified that his attorney never\\nadvised him of the 20-year plea offer until years after trial, when he received the state’s\\ndiscovery packet. When asked if he would have accepted the offer, petitioner testified variously\\nthat “you damn skippy, with 50 something years, I would have took 20 years,” and “[i]t’s\\npossible, if I knew what I was facing going to trial. It’s highly likely, yes, I would have accepted\\nthat 20 year deal.” But throughout the postconviction proceedings, petitioner maintained his\\ninnocence of the crimes, and even speculated that he may have been misidentified.\\n\\n His trial counsel, Walwyn, also testified at the hearing. On the issue of plea offers,\\nWalwyn stated that he\\n\\n explained to [petitioner], because of his prior record, it’s, you know, the\\n [prosecutor] is taking a hard stance on this case. And basically they’re wanting\\n him to plead to a lot of time, and he said, [“]well, I’m innocent, I didn’t rob\\n anybody, I didn’t do it.[”] He always said the same thing . . . . But in any event,\\n even prior to the trial, he basically said that I’m not taking a deal of any sort.\\n\\nHe later reiterated that he “did relay the offer” to petitioner, but petitioner told him “he was not\\ntaking any time for this.”\\n\\n The postconviction court denied petitioner relief in a written order, crediting Walwyn’s\\ntestimony that he communicated the offer and that petitioner was not interested in taking any\\nplea agreement. Petitioner again appealed to the TCCA, which again affirmed. Johnson v. State,\\nM2012-02310-CCA-R3-PC, 2014 WL 793636, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 27, 2014). For the\\nfirst time, the TCCA expanded petitioner’s claim from one in which his trial counsel never\\nconveyed the plea offer to him, to an additional ineffectiveness claim—that Walwyn conveyed\\nthe plea offer but did not advise petitioner of the much higher, consecutive sentence he could\\nface after trial. Id. at 7. Addressing this new formulation, the TCCA reasoned that Walwyn’s\\nperformance was deficient, but petitioner could not establish prejudice. Id. at *8–9. The court\\nrecited the pertinent standards for determining ineffective assistance in the plea context and\\nspecifically quoted Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), for the standard a defendant must\\nmeet to show prejudice in the plea-negotiation context. Johnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *8–9.\\nThe court reasoned that, despite the big disparity between the plea offer and the possible\\nsentence petitioner faced after trial, he could not show prejudice because he was uninterested in\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 4\\n\\n\\ntakin any plea offer at the time. Id. at *9. The Tennessee Supreme Court again denied him\\npermission to appeal. See id., perm. app. denied (Jul. 14, 2014).\\n\\n Petitioner then timely filed this petition for habeas corpus. He raised numerous claims of\\nineffective assistance, including that Walwyn provided constitutionally deficient counsel during\\nthe plea-negotiation stage. In a thorough opinion, the district court dismissed the petition. On\\nthe pertinent ineffective-assistance issue, the district court determined that the TCCA opinion did\\nnot contradict or unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, nor did that court base its\\ndecision on an unreasonable determination of the facts. We granted a certificate of appealability\\nlimited to his claim of ineffective assistance during plea bargaining.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n “In an appeal from the denial of habeas relief, we review the district court’s legal\\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” Scott v. Houk, 760 F.3d 497, 503\\n(6th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of\\n1996 (AEDPA), we can overturn a state conviction for an issue adjudicated on the merits only if\\nthe relevant state-court decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application\\nof, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;” or\\n(2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.”\\n28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). When a habeas petition arising under § 2254(d) is based upon a claim of\\nineffective assistance of counsel, relief is all the more difficult to come by. The standard for\\n§ 2254(d) relief and the test for ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.\\n668 (1984), are each “highly deferential.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011)\\n(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). “[A]nd when the two apply in tandem, review is ‘doubly’\\nso.” Id. (quoting Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 (2009)).\\n\\n III.\\n\\n The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . .\\nhave the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. It includes “the right to\\neffective counsel—which imposes a baseline requirement of competence.” United States v.\\nGonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148 (2006) (emphasis added). And it applies at all critical stages\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 5\\n\\n\\nof criminal litigation, including pretrial plea proceedings. Logan v. United States, 910 F.3d 864,\\n868 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 140 (2012)). A defendant who rejects\\nor otherwise misses out on a formal plea offer because of deficient performance or erroneous\\nadvice can establish ineffective assistance of counsel only if he satisfies the well-known\\nStrickland standard. Lafler, 566 U.S. at 172–74.\\n\\n Under Strickland’s two-part framework, a criminal defendant claiming ineffective\\nassistance during plea negotiations must prove that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient, i.e.,\\n“counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the\\ndefendant by the Sixth Amendment,” and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.\\n466 U.S. at 687. The parties essentially agree (or don’t contest) that defendant’s trial counsel\\nperformed deficiently. We too assume as much and turn our attention to prejudice. “To show\\nprejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel where a plea offer has lapsed or been rejected\\nbecause of counsel’s deficient performance, defendants must demonstrate a reasonable\\nprobability they would have accepted the earlier plea offer had they been afforded effective\\nassistance of counsel.” Frye, 566 U.S. at 147.\\n\\n Recognizing the high bar AEDPA has placed in front of him, petitioner raises challenges\\nto three aspects of the TCCA decision: (1) that court’s erroneous legal analysis of the ineffective-\\nassistance issue, (2) its incorrect and unreasonable factual determination about his willingness to\\naccept a plea, and (3) its unreasonable application of the law to the facts. We address each\\ncontention in turn.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n Petitioner’s first argument is that the TCCA legally erred by applying an impermissibly\\nhigh burden of proof to his charge of ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree. For this, he\\nfocuses on two sentences in the TCCA’s opinion:\\n\\n In light of the postconviction court’s factual finding that the petitioner was “not\\n interested in taking any plea” and other evidence suggesting that the petitioner\\n was not interested in plea bargaining, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to\\n establish by clear and convincing evidence that he would have taken the twenty-\\n year plea offer. Accordingly, the petitioner has not shown a reasonable\\n probability that, but for trial counsel’s failure to alert him to his potential\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 6\\n\\n\\n sentencing exposure, the plea offer would have been presented to and accepted by\\n the sentencing court.\\n\\nJohnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *9 (emphasis added). That clear-and-convincing-evidence\\nstandard, petitioner claims, is contrary to clearly established federal law.\\n\\n Petitioner must show that the state court “arrive[d] at a conclusion opposite to that\\nreached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law” or that it “confront[ed] facts that are\\nmaterially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrive[d] at a result\\nopposite” to that reached by the Supreme Court. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 (2000).\\nAEDPA’s “contrary to” clause means “‘diametrically different,’ ‘opposite in character or\\nnature,’ or ‘mutually opposed.’” Id. (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 495\\n(1976)). “The text of § 2254(d)(1) therefore suggests that the state court’s decision must be\\nsubstantially different from the relevant precedent of [the Supreme] Court.” Id.; see also Ivory v.\\nJackson, 509 F.3d 284, 291 (6th Cir. 2007).\\n\\n In Lafler, the Supreme Court reiterated that the Strickland prejudice standard applied to\\nplea-bargaining. 566 U.S. at 163. In this context, a defendant must show that the outcome of the\\nplea process would have been different with competent advice. Id. And when counsel’s\\ndeficient advice leads to the rejection of a plea, “a defendant must show that but for the\\nineffective advice of counsel there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have\\nbeen presented to the court . . . , that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the\\nconviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under\\nthe judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed.” Id. at 164 (emphasis added).\\n\\n A reasonable probability, the Court has held, “is a probability sufficient to undermine\\nconfidence in the outcome,” which “requires a substantial . . . likelihood of a different result,”\\n“not just [a] conceivable” one. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 189 (2011) (quoting\\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 694; Harrington, 562 U.S. at 112) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\nBut the standard does not “require a showing that counsel’s actions ‘more likely than not altered\\nthe outcome.’” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 111–12 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693). Instead,\\nit is sufficient to show that a different outcome was “reasonably likely.” Id. at 111 (quoting\\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 696). In any event, petitioner argues that the proper prejudice standard\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 7\\n\\n\\nunder Supreme Court precedent falls well short of the “clear and convincing” standard the TCCA\\napplied.\\n\\n The district court held that Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649 (2004) (per curiam),\\ncontrolled on this issue, and required the rejection of petitioner’s claim. In Holland, the Supreme\\nCourt reversed our court, concluding that we erred in “holding that the state court acted contrary\\nto federal law by requiring proof of prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence standard rather\\nthan by a reasonable probability.” Id. at 654. There, as here, the opinion we interpreted came\\nfrom the TCCA. The Supreme Court noted that the TCCA began its analysis in that case by\\nreciting the correct Strickland standard, before stating that, “[i]n a post-conviction proceeding,\\nthe defendant has the burden of proving his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.\\n(emphasis added). But the court disagreed with our interpretation of that statement as applying a\\nhigher burden on the defendant:\\n\\n In context, however, this statement is reasonably read as addressing the general\\n burden of proof in postconviction proceedings with regard to factual\\n contentions—for example, those relating to whether defense counsel’s\\n performance was deficient. Although it is possible to read it as referring also to\\n the question whether the deficiency was prejudicial, thereby supplanting\\n Strickland, such a reading would needlessly create internal inconsistency in the\\n opinion.\\n\\nId. After noting two other portions of the TCCA opinion that this court erroneously faulted for\\napplying an incorrect burden, the Court chastised us for violating two of its prescriptions in state-\\nhabeas cases: (1) “state-court decisions [must] be given the benefit of the doubt,” and\\n(2) “[r]eadiness to attribute error is inconsistent with the presumption that state courts know and\\nfollow the law.” Id. at 655 (quoting Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam)).\\nTherefore, the Court reversed our grant of habeas relief to the defendant. Id.\\n\\n The district court correctly concluded Holland controls on this issue. Treating the\\nTCCA’s reference to a “clear and convincing evidence” standard and a “reasonable probability”\\nstandard in back-to-back sentences as a clear legal error “is inconsistent with the presumption\\nthat state courts know and follow the law.” Id. Earlier in the opinion, in the standard of review\\nsection, the TCCA cited Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-110(f) for the proposition that “a petitioner\\nmust prove his allegations of fact by clear and convincing evidence” in postconviction\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 8\\n\\n\\nproceedings. Johnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *6.1 Thus, as in Holland, a fair reading of the\\nopinion is that the “clear and convincing evidence” line “address[es] the general burden of proof\\nin postconviction proceedings with regard to factual contentions.” 542 U.S. at 654.\\n\\n And the TCCA opinion bolsters our conclusion by listing, immediately before the “clear\\nand convincing evidence” sentence, three pieces of “evidence which suggest[ed] the petitioner\\nwould not have accepted any plea offer.” Johnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *9. First, the TCCA\\ndetermined that “petitioner’s own testimony on the issue was equivocal, as he testified at times\\nthat he would have taken the offer and at other times that it was ‘highly likely’ or ‘possible’ that\\nhe would have.” Id. Second, it noted that he “maintained his innocence throughout the trial and\\npost-conviction proceedings.” Id. Third, the TCCA cited the postconviction court’s crediting of\\npetitioner’s counsel, who “testified that petitioner was adamantly opposed from the beginning to\\ntaking a plea offer, and [who] testified that the petitioner did not want to plead guilty because he\\nsteadfastly maintained that he was innocent of the crime.” Id. Thus, reading this opinion\\nwithout readiness to attribute error, the TCCA opinion can reasonably be interpreted as holding\\nthat petitioner failed to rebut these factual conclusions made by the postconviction trial court.\\nSee Holland, 542 U.S. at 655.\\n\\n As a result, the opinion is best read as merely noting the Tennessee rule in postconviction\\nproceedings that a petitioner must prove his allegations of fact by clear and convincing evidence.\\nAnd the propriety of the court’s decision is reinforced by its express use of the correct\\nstandard—“a reasonable probability”—in coming to its conclusion. Johnson, 2014 WL 793636,\\nat *9. To read the TCCA’s opinion as petitioner urges “would needlessly create internal\\ninconsistency in the opinion,” Holland, 542 U.S. at 654, and would force us to ignore the\\nTCCA’s recitation of the Strickland/Lafler standard in the very next sentence. Instead, reading\\nthe opinion fairly, the TCCA’s decision is neither contrary to, nor or does it involve an\\nunreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and the\\ndeferential review we apply to state-court decisions precludes relief on this issue.\\n\\n\\n 1This rule is consistent with AEDPA’s own rules and standards for factual determinations. See 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 2254(e)(1) (“[A] determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The\\napplicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”).\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 9\\n\\n\\n Petitioner’s attempt to distinguish Holland is unpersuasive. He argues that “Holland . . .\\nis nothing like the instant case because in Holland the TCCA made no clear error,” and the\\nTCCA’s statement at issue in that case “was completely true as long as one understood it to refer,\\nin accordance with the governing statute, to allegations ‘of fact’—and there was no reason to\\nunderstand that statement to mean otherwise.” But the same is true here. Both cases involve the\\nargument that the TCCA applied an improperly burdensome standard to a claim of ineffective\\nassistance of counsel, contrary to Supreme Court caselaw. And, in Holland, the Supreme Court\\nchastised us for treating an ambiguous statement as legal error because we failed to give the\\nstate-court opinion the benefit of the doubt. 542 U.S. at 654–55. As noted above, ruling in\\npetitioner’s favor would risk the exact same interpretive error—it is just as likely in this case as it\\nwas in Holland that the state court applied the higher burden to factual assertions, not the\\nStrickland/Lafler prejudice prong. Id.\\n\\n Holland notwithstanding, petitioner directs us to Vasquez v. Bradshaw, 345 F. App’x 104\\n(6th Cir. 2009), which he claims is more analogous to this case. There, we granted a petitioner\\nhabeas relief, holding that the Ohio courts did not follow Strickland’s clearly established law\\nbecause “the court stated that prejudice occurs only when ‘the result of petitioner’s trial or legal\\nproceeding would have been different had defense counsel provided proper representation.’” Id.\\nat 110. But Vasquez is unpublished (and therefore not binding on us) and fails to marshal\\nsupport for petitioner’s result because the majority’s reasoning in that case is not persuasive. As\\nnoted by the Vasquez dissent, the majority made a number of analytical errors that undercut its\\nconclusion, and its reasoning was contrary to Holland. See id. at 122–34 (Griffin, J., dissenting)\\n(outlining the numerous analytical errors in the majority opinion).2\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2And even if Vasquez were both persuasive and binding on this panel, its reasoning would not control this\\ncase because the majority relied upon various deficiencies that aren’t present here. For example, the Ohio court\\nexpressed an allegedly erroneous standard for prejudice and then directly relied on it in its analysis. Id. at 110–11\\n(majority op.). But here, immediately after stating the higher burden plaintiff alleges the TCCA applied, the opinion\\nreiterated the correct Strickland/Lafler standard and concluded that petitioner did not meet it. Johnson, 2014 WL\\n793636, at *9. Thus, the TCCA here inoculated itself against concerns that it did not know or apply clearly\\nestablished federal law. See Woodford, 537 U.S. at 23–24 (noting that a conclusion that a state court held the\\nrespondent to a higher standard of proof than Strickland required based on three or four shorthand references,\\ndespite numerous citations of and quotations from Strickland, was error).\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 10\\n\\n\\n Finally, and only in his reply brief, petitioner argues that the TCCA erred in applying the\\nclear-and-convincing-evidence standard to the question of whether he would have taken the\\ntwenty-year plea offer because, under Tennessee law, the clear-and-convincing-evidence\\nstandard only applies to issues of historical fact, not the question of whether petitioner\\nhypothetically would have accepted the plea deal had he received effective counsel. We\\ntypically do not entertain arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. United States v.\\nGalaviz, 645 F.3d 347, 362 (6th Cir. 2011). But even addressing that argument does petitioner\\nno better. Giving the opinion the benefit of the doubt, Holland, 542 U.S. at 655, it is clear that\\nthe TCCA properly applied its own law. But again, immediately preceding the statement about\\nclear and convincing evidence, the TCCA noted three relevant factual determinations:\\npetitioner’s equivocal testimony, his consistent assertions of innocence, and his counsel’s\\ncredited testimony that petitioner was completely uninterested in any plea. Johnson, 2014 WL\\n793636, at *9. These determinations—factual findings and credibility determinations—are\\nexactly what Tennessee law requires clear and convincing evidence to refute. See Tenn. Code\\nAnn. § 40-30-110(f).\\n\\n Given the TCCA’s citation of the controlling law (Strickland and Lafler) and the\\nfrequency that the proper standard (“reasonable probability”) peppers the opinion—including\\nimmediately after the allegedly offending “clear and convincing evidence” statement—the\\nTCCA did not act contrary to federal law. See Holland, 542 U.S. at 654–55. And even if we\\nwere to disagree with the TCCA on how it applied Strickland/Lafler, our disagreement would\\ncertainly be “fair-minded.” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004); see also\\nHarrington, 562 U.S. at 102 (noting that even when a federal court of appeals “had little doubt”\\nit would find ineffective assistance under de novo review, a state court’s opposite conclusion is\\nnot necessarily unreasonable). In sum, petitioner cannot overcome AEDPA’s high bar on this\\nground.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Next, petitioner contends that the TCCA made an unreasonable finding of fact when it\\nconcluded that he was equivocal on whether he would have accepted the 20-year plea offer had\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 11\\n\\n\\nhe known the actual amount of prison time he faced after trial. Again, we find no error sufficient\\nto overcome AEDPA’s substantial deference to state-court decisions.\\n\\n Under AEDPA, we may only grant a petition for habeas corpus if the state-court\\n“adjudication of the claim . . . resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable\\ndetermination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”\\n28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Furthermore, “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court\\nshall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the\\npresumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).\\n“[A] state-court factual determination is not unreasonable merely because the federal habeas\\ncourt would have reached a different conclusion in the first instance.” Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S.\\n290, 301 (2010). And we apply the same deference “even to state-court factual findings made on\\nappeal.” Franklin v. Bradshaw, 695 F.3d 439, 447 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Rushen v. Spain,\\n464 U.S. 114, 120 (1983); Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 546–47 (1981)).\\n\\n Petitioner claims that he was consistent in his testimony that he would have accepted the\\nplea offer had he been properly advised, and that the TCCA mischaracterized his testimony by\\ncherry-picking his single use of the word “possible” and amplifying its meaning. Given the\\nTCCA’s determination, it is important to consider exactly what petitioner said at the hearing.\\nFirst, on direct examination:\\n\\n Q. Okay. So it’s your position that Mr. Walwyn never conveyed this 20 year\\n offer to you?\\n A. No.\\n Q. If he had, would you have taken it?\\n A. I don’t mean no disrespect, but you damn skippy, with 50 something years, I\\n would have took 20 years.\\n\\nThen, on cross-examination:\\n\\n Q. Were you saying that if you would have known about it, you would have\\n plead[ed] guilty to a 20 year sentence on aggravated robbery?\\n A. It’s possible, if I knew what I was facing going to trial. It’s highly likely, yes,\\n I would have accepted that 20 year deal.\\n Q. But you’ve been telling us all morning, you didn’t commit a robbery?\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 12\\n\\n\\n A. The point is, if I’m facing 54 years and my attorney would have explained to\\n me, under any circumstance, I would have taken 20 at 35 percent, if I was facing a\\n jay walking.\\n Q. You threw out the time that you were charged before this trial happened,\\n insisted that you were innocent of these charges, right?\\n A. True. I tell you I’m innocent today.\\n Q. You still say [you’re] innocent?\\n A. Most definitely.\\n Q. But you would have plead[ed] guilty to aggravated robbery, you’re claiming --\\n A. With my background, it’s to the best interest of anybody coming in these\\n systems.\\n Q. Because you have multiple robberies in your record?\\n A. I have a background, yes, I have been -- I committed those charges, and I\\n actually plead[ed] guilty to them, because I was guilty. I went to trial on this\\n charge because I wasn’t guilty. And if I would have knew that I was, could have\\n received a 20 year sentence and my attorney would have consulted me and let me\\n know what I was facing, I would have took the 20 years.\\n\\n(Emphasis added).\\n\\n Petitioner argues that the TCCA gave undue weight to his use of the word “possible”\\nduring cross-examination because “possible” has two distinct meanings: one, the opposite of\\nimpossible; the other, a word specifically chosen to reflect a degree of probability (less than\\nprobable but within the realm of possibility). He further argues that the context of the quote\\nshows that he used “possible” in the first sense—the opposite of “impossible”—and that nothing\\nabout his answers on this topic justify a conclusion that he ever meant a probability less than\\nlikely. This is a sensible interpretation of his testimony. And it might even be the best\\ninterpretation, given the context. But that does not require the conclusion that the TCCA was\\nunreasonable for determining that his use of “possible” showed equivocation. See Wood, 558\\nU.S. at 301. As the Supreme Court has held, state courts are in a far better position than federal\\ncourts to make such findings of fact or credibility, and their conclusions “deserve[] a high\\nmeasure of deference.” Rushen, 464 U.S. at 120 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district\\ncourt correctly concluded that “[a]lthough [petitioner]’s reading of the transcript is plausible, so\\ntoo is that of the TCCA.”\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 13\\n\\n\\n Moreover, the TCCA did not rely solely on this factual determination. Instead, the\\nTCCA based its conclusion on petitioner’s equivocal testimony, his consistent assertions of\\ninnocence throughout trial and postconviction proceedings, and Walwyn’s testimony that\\npetitioner told him he wasn’t interested in taking any plea agreement at all. Johnson, 2014 WL\\n793636, at *9. Taking this evidence collectively, then, the TCCA was not unreasonable in\\ndetermining that petitioner was uninterested in taking any plea. Wood, 558 U.S. at 301.\\nPetitioner’s arguments are insufficient to overcome AEDPA’s required deference to state courts\\non factual determinations.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n Finally, petitioner claims that the TCCA unreasonably applied the law to the facts when it\\nignored that the Strickland prejudice test is objective, not subjective, and wrongly gave more\\nweight to petitioner’s equivocal statements than the fact that any reasonable defendant in his\\nshoes would have been motivated to take the favorable plea bargain. But yet again, he has not\\nmet his heavy burden under AEDPA.\\n\\n In this argument, petitioner relies on our opinion in Sawaf v. United States, 570 F. App’x\\n544 (6th Cir. 2014). There was little doubt that Sawaf’s defense counsel was deficient for\\n“fail[ing] to advise him about the applicable sentencing guidelines at any time prior to his trial.”\\nId. at 546. This court found presumptive prejudice from his counsel’s deficient performance due\\nto the difference between the plea offer (just over three years) and the sentence the petitioner\\nreceived after conviction (twenty years). Id. at 547. We criticized the district court because,\\nalthough it “acknowledged the general presumption of prejudice ‘created by the significant\\ndisparity between the plea offered and the ultimate sentence,’” id. at 548, it nonetheless\\nconcluded that Sawaf had failed to show that he would have accepted the government’s offer:\\n\\n [T]he district court should have started its analysis by assuming that Sawaf had\\n been prejudiced with regard to the plea negotiations, and then asked whether there\\n was evidence to rebut that presumption. Instead, the district court determined that\\n Sawaf’s claim that he would have entered a guilty plea if adequately informed\\n was not credible, given Sawaf’s continued insistence that he was innocent, prior\\n to and during the trial, after the trial, and even during the evidentiary hearing, and\\n effectively declined to credit Sawaf with the applicable presumption of prejudice.\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 14\\n\\n\\nId. Though we gave clear-error deference to the trial court’s credibility determination, we still\\nreversed for failure to credit Sawaf with the presumption he was due. Id.\\n\\n Sawaf fails to provide petitioner relief for three reasons. First, Sawaf is distinguishable\\nbecause it analyzed a petition arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not § 2254, and therefore\\nAEDPA’s “double deference” did not apply. See Harrington, 562 U.S. at 105. Second, and\\nrelated to the first point, because petitioner’s case is governed by AEDPA, only state-court\\ndecisions that are “contrary to, or involve[] an unreasonable application of, clearly established\\nFederal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” merit habeas relief. 28\\nU.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (emphasis added). Sawaf is an opinion of this court (and unpublished at\\nthat); therefore, it does not constitute “clearly established Federal law.” Id.\\n\\n Third and finally, it is not at all clear that the TCCA opinion violates Sawaf’s\\nprescription. There, we held that a large sentencing disparity between a plea offer and the\\nsentence received after trial establishes a mere presumption of prejudice that may be rebutted.\\n570 F. App’x at 548. But that’s exactly what the TCCA did here. As we have discussed\\nthroughout this opinion, after noting that rule, the fact that “[t]he Sixth Circuit does not require a\\ndefendant to support his own assertion that he would have accepted the offer with additional\\nobjective evidence,” and the government’s strong case against petitioner, the court proceeded to\\nrebut that presumption with its factual findings on petitioner’s equivocal testimony, his\\nassertions of innocence, and his attorney’s credited statements. Johnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *9\\n(citing Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 2003); Smith v. United States, 348 F.3d\\n545 (6th Cir. 2003). While petitioner might argue the merits of the TCCA’s weighing of that\\nevidence, that court at least followed the procedures and presumptions we required in Sawaf. In\\nsum, he is not entitled to relief on this ground either.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n We affirm the judgment of the district court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4401044/\", \"author_raw\": \"GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MCKEAGUE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFIN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"NALBANDIAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623791/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Joseph Lamont JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kevin GENOVESE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-28\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0104p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n JOSEPH LAMONT JOHNSON, JR., ┐\n Petitioner-Appellant, │\n │\n > No. 18-5330\n v. │\n │\n │\n KEVIN GENOVESE, Warden, │\n Respondent-Appellee. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.\n No. 3:14-cv-02305—Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., District Judge.\n\n Argued: March 20, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 28, 2019\n\n Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Michael C. Holley, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Nashville, Tennessee, for\nAppellant. John H. Bledsoe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee,\nfor Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael C. Holley, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Nashville,\nTennessee, for Appellant. Nicholas S. Bolduc, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,\nNashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.\n\n Petitioner Joseph Johnson was convicted of multiple felonies in Tennessee state court\narising out of the robbery of a Nashville Taco Bell. He now seeks a writ of habeas corpus,\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 2\n\n\narguing that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by his trial counsel’s deficient\nperformance in the pretrial plea-negotiation phase of his state-court proceedings and that the\nstate court’s opposite conclusion was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of\nfederal law. The district court found no basis for habeas relief and, for the reasons that follow,\nwe affirm.\n\n I.\n\n In November of 2003, petitioner and a friend robbed a Taco Bell of approximately $200\nto $300. State v. Johnson, M2007-01644-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2567729 at *1–2 (Tenn. Crim.\nApp. Aug. 18, 2009). Police captured them shortly thereafter. Id. at *3. Petitioner was indicted\non four charges related to that robbery. Id. at *1. Attorney Paul Walwyn represented petitioner\nfor pretrial and trial proceedings. A few days before trial began, the state offered a plea deal for\npetitioner to plead guilty to all counts in exchange “for a 20 year sentence as a range two\noffender.” He allegedly rejected that offer, though the parties debate some facts surrounding the\nplea process.\n\n So he went to trial, where a Tennessee jury subsequently convicted him of all four\ncharges: two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of\nfelony evading arrest, though one aggravated-robbery conviction was later changed to\naggravated assault due to double jeopardy concerns. Id. at *1, *5. The trial court sentenced him\nto twenty-eight years’ imprisonment for aggravated robbery, eight years’ imprisonment for one\nconviction of aggravated assault, ten years’ imprisonment on the other aggravated-assault\nconviction, and eight years’ imprisonment for evading arrest, all to be served consecutively, for a\ntotal of fifty-four years in prison. Id. On direct appeal, petitioner raised sufficiency-of-the-\nevidence claims on all four convictions, challenges to his jury instructions, and challenges to his\nsentences’ lengths and their consecutive nature. Id. at *5-19. The Tennessee Court of Criminal\nAppeals (TCCA) affirmed, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied him permission to appeal.\nSee id., perm. app. denied (Feb. 22, 2010).\n\n Petitioner then filed a timely motion for postconviction relief in state court. Among the\nnumerous issues he raised was a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the plea-\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 3\n\n\nnegotiation process. At an evidentiary hearing on the petition, he testified that his attorney never\nadvised him of the 20-year plea offer until years after trial, when he received the state’s\ndiscovery packet. When asked if he would have accepted the offer, petitioner testified variously\nthat “you damn skippy, with 50 something years, I would have took 20 years,” and “[i]t’s\npossible, if I knew what I was facing going to trial. It’s highly likely, yes, I would have accepted\nthat 20 year deal.” But throughout the postconviction proceedings, petitioner maintained his\ninnocence of the crimes, and even speculated that he may have been misidentified.\n\n His trial counsel, Walwyn, also testified at the hearing. On the issue of plea offers,\nWalwyn stated that he\n\n explained to [petitioner], because of his prior record, it’s, you know, the\n [prosecutor] is taking a hard stance on this case. And basically they’re wanting\n him to plead to a lot of time, and he said, [“]well, I’m innocent, I didn’t rob\n anybody, I didn’t do it.[”] He always said the same thing . . . . But in any event,\n even prior to the trial, he basically said that I’m not taking a deal of any sort.\n\nHe later reiterated that he “did relay the offer” to petitioner, but petitioner told him “he was not\ntaking any time for this.”\n\n The postconviction court denied petitioner relief in a written order, crediting Walwyn’s\ntestimony that he communicated the offer and that petitioner was not interested in taking any\nplea agreement. Petitioner again appealed to the TCCA, which again affirmed. Johnson v. State,\nM2012-02310-CCA-R3-PC, 2014 WL 793636, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 27, 2014). For the\nfirst time, the TCCA expanded petitioner’s claim from one in which his trial counsel never\nconveyed the plea offer to him, to an additional ineffectiveness claim—that Walwyn conveyed\nthe plea offer but did not advise petitioner of the much higher, consecutive sentence he could\nface after trial. Id. at 7. Addressing this new formulation, the TCCA reasoned that Walwyn’s\nperformance was deficient, but petitioner could not establish prejudice. Id. at *8–9. The court\nrecited the pertinent standards for determining ineffective assistance in the plea context and\nspecifically quoted Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), for the standard a defendant must\nmeet to show prejudice in the plea-negotiation context. Johnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *8–9.\nThe court reasoned that, despite the big disparity between the plea offer and the possible\nsentence petitioner faced after trial, he could not show prejudice because he was uninterested in\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 4\n\n\ntakin any plea offer at the time. Id. at *9. The Tennessee Supreme Court again denied him\npermission to appeal. See id., perm. app. denied (Jul. 14, 2014).\n\n Petitioner then timely filed this petition for habeas corpus. He raised numerous claims of\nineffective assistance, including that Walwyn provided constitutionally deficient counsel during\nthe plea-negotiation stage. In a thorough opinion, the district court dismissed the petition. On\nthe pertinent ineffective-assistance issue, the district court determined that the TCCA opinion did\nnot contradict or unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, nor did that court base its\ndecision on an unreasonable determination of the facts. We granted a certificate of appealability\nlimited to his claim of ineffective assistance during plea bargaining.\n\n II.\n\n “In an appeal from the denial of habeas relief, we review the district court’s legal\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” Scott v. Houk, 760 F.3d 497, 503\n(6th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of\n1996 (AEDPA), we can overturn a state conviction for an issue adjudicated on the merits only if\nthe relevant state-court decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application\nof, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;” or\n(2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.”\n28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). When a habeas petition arising under § 2254(d) is based upon a claim of\nineffective assistance of counsel, relief is all the more difficult to come by. The standard for\n§ 2254(d) relief and the test for ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.\n668 (1984), are each “highly deferential.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011)\n(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). “[A]nd when the two apply in tandem, review is ‘doubly’\nso.” Id. (quoting Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 (2009)).\n\n III.\n\n The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . .\nhave the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. It includes “the right to\neffective counsel—which imposes a baseline requirement of competence.” United States v.\nGonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148 (2006) (emphasis added). And it applies at all critical stages\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 5\n\n\nof criminal litigation, including pretrial plea proceedings. Logan v. United States, 910 F.3d 864,\n868 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 140 (2012)). A defendant who rejects\nor otherwise misses out on a formal plea offer because of deficient performance or erroneous\nadvice can establish ineffective assistance of counsel only if he satisfies the well-known\nStrickland standard. Lafler, 566 U.S. at 172–74.\n\n Under Strickland’s two-part framework, a criminal defendant claiming ineffective\nassistance during plea negotiations must prove that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient, i.e.,\n“counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the\ndefendant by the Sixth Amendment,” and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.\n466 U.S. at 687. The parties essentially agree (or don’t contest) that defendant’s trial counsel\nperformed deficiently. We too assume as much and turn our attention to prejudice. “To show\nprejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel where a plea offer has lapsed or been rejected\nbecause of counsel’s deficient performance, defendants must demonstrate a reasonable\nprobability they would have accepted the earlier plea offer had they been afforded effective\nassistance of counsel.” Frye, 566 U.S. at 147.\n\n Recognizing the high bar AEDPA has placed in front of him, petitioner raises challenges\nto three aspects of the TCCA decision: (1) that court’s erroneous legal analysis of the ineffective-\nassistance issue, (2) its incorrect and unreasonable factual determination about his willingness to\naccept a plea, and (3) its unreasonable application of the law to the facts. We address each\ncontention in turn.\n\n A.\n\n Petitioner’s first argument is that the TCCA legally erred by applying an impermissibly\nhigh burden of proof to his charge of ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree. For this, he\nfocuses on two sentences in the TCCA’s opinion:\n\n In light of the postconviction court’s factual finding that the petitioner was “not\n interested in taking any plea” and other evidence suggesting that the petitioner\n was not interested in plea bargaining, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to\n establish by clear and convincing evidence that he would have taken the twenty-\n year plea offer. Accordingly, the petitioner has not shown a reasonable\n probability that, but for trial counsel’s failure to alert him to his potential\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 6\n\n\n sentencing exposure, the plea offer would have been presented to and accepted by\n the sentencing court.\n\nJohnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *9 (emphasis added). That clear-and-convincing-evidence\nstandard, petitioner claims, is contrary to clearly established federal law.\n\n Petitioner must show that the state court “arrive[d] at a conclusion opposite to that\nreached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law” or that it “confront[ed] facts that are\nmaterially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrive[d] at a result\nopposite” to that reached by the Supreme Court. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 (2000).\nAEDPA’s “contrary to” clause means “‘diametrically different,’ ‘opposite in character or\nnature,’ or ‘mutually opposed.’” Id. (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 495\n(1976)). “The text of § 2254(d)(1) therefore suggests that the state court’s decision must be\nsubstantially different from the relevant precedent of [the Supreme] Court.” Id.; see also Ivory v.\nJackson, 509 F.3d 284, 291 (6th Cir. 2007).\n\n In Lafler, the Supreme Court reiterated that the Strickland prejudice standard applied to\nplea-bargaining. 566 U.S. at 163. In this context, a defendant must show that the outcome of the\nplea process would have been different with competent advice. Id. And when counsel’s\ndeficient advice leads to the rejection of a plea, “a defendant must show that but for the\nineffective advice of counsel there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have\nbeen presented to the court . . . , that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the\nconviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under\nthe judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed.” Id. at 164 (emphasis added).\n\n A reasonable probability, the Court has held, “is a probability sufficient to undermine\nconfidence in the outcome,” which “requires a substantial . . . likelihood of a different result,”\n“not just [a] conceivable” one. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 189 (2011) (quoting\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 694; Harrington, 562 U.S. at 112) (internal quotation marks omitted).\nBut the standard does not “require a showing that counsel’s actions ‘more likely than not altered\nthe outcome.’” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 111–12 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693). Instead,\nit is sufficient to show that a different outcome was “reasonably likely.” Id. at 111 (quoting\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 696). In any event, petitioner argues that the proper prejudice standard\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 7\n\n\nunder Supreme Court precedent falls well short of the “clear and convincing” standard the TCCA\napplied.\n\n The district court held that Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649 (2004) (per curiam),\ncontrolled on this issue, and required the rejection of petitioner’s claim. In Holland, the Supreme\nCourt reversed our court, concluding that we erred in “holding that the state court acted contrary\nto federal law by requiring proof of prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence standard rather\nthan by a reasonable probability.” Id. at 654. There, as here, the opinion we interpreted came\nfrom the TCCA. The Supreme Court noted that the TCCA began its analysis in that case by\nreciting the correct Strickland standard, before stating that, “[i]n a post-conviction proceeding,\nthe defendant has the burden of proving his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.\n(emphasis added). But the court disagreed with our interpretation of that statement as applying a\nhigher burden on the defendant:\n\n In context, however, this statement is reasonably read as addressing the general\n burden of proof in postconviction proceedings with regard to factual\n contentions—for example, those relating to whether defense counsel’s\n performance was deficient. Although it is possible to read it as referring also to\n the question whether the deficiency was prejudicial, thereby supplanting\n Strickland, such a reading would needlessly create internal inconsistency in the\n opinion.\n\nId. After noting two other portions of the TCCA opinion that this court erroneously faulted for\napplying an incorrect burden, the Court chastised us for violating two of its prescriptions in state-\nhabeas cases: (1) “state-court decisions [must] be given the benefit of the doubt,” and\n(2) “[r]eadiness to attribute error is inconsistent with the presumption that state courts know and\nfollow the law.” Id. at 655 (quoting Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam)).\nTherefore, the Court reversed our grant of habeas relief to the defendant. Id.\n\n The district court correctly concluded Holland controls on this issue. Treating the\nTCCA’s reference to a “clear and convincing evidence” standard and a “reasonable probability”\nstandard in back-to-back sentences as a clear legal error “is inconsistent with the presumption\nthat state courts know and follow the law.” Id. Earlier in the opinion, in the standard of review\nsection, the TCCA cited Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-110(f) for the proposition that “a petitioner\nmust prove his allegations of fact by clear and convincing evidence” in postconviction\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 8\n\n\nproceedings. Johnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *6.1 Thus, as in Holland, a fair reading of the\nopinion is that the “clear and convincing evidence” line “address[es] the general burden of proof\nin postconviction proceedings with regard to factual contentions.” 542 U.S. at 654.\n\n And the TCCA opinion bolsters our conclusion by listing, immediately before the “clear\nand convincing evidence” sentence, three pieces of “evidence which suggest[ed] the petitioner\nwould not have accepted any plea offer.” Johnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *9. First, the TCCA\ndetermined that “petitioner’s own testimony on the issue was equivocal, as he testified at times\nthat he would have taken the offer and at other times that it was ‘highly likely’ or ‘possible’ that\nhe would have.” Id. Second, it noted that he “maintained his innocence throughout the trial and\npost-conviction proceedings.” Id. Third, the TCCA cited the postconviction court’s crediting of\npetitioner’s counsel, who “testified that petitioner was adamantly opposed from the beginning to\ntaking a plea offer, and [who] testified that the petitioner did not want to plead guilty because he\nsteadfastly maintained that he was innocent of the crime.” Id. Thus, reading this opinion\nwithout readiness to attribute error, the TCCA opinion can reasonably be interpreted as holding\nthat petitioner failed to rebut these factual conclusions made by the postconviction trial court.\nSee Holland, 542 U.S. at 655.\n\n As a result, the opinion is best read as merely noting the Tennessee rule in postconviction\nproceedings that a petitioner must prove his allegations of fact by clear and convincing evidence.\nAnd the propriety of the court’s decision is reinforced by its express use of the correct\nstandard—“a reasonable probability”—in coming to its conclusion. Johnson, 2014 WL 793636,\nat *9. To read the TCCA’s opinion as petitioner urges “would needlessly create internal\ninconsistency in the opinion,” Holland, 542 U.S. at 654, and would force us to ignore the\nTCCA’s recitation of the Strickland/Lafler standard in the very next sentence. Instead, reading\nthe opinion fairly, the TCCA’s decision is neither contrary to, nor or does it involve an\nunreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and the\ndeferential review we apply to state-court decisions precludes relief on this issue.\n\n\n 1This rule is consistent with AEDPA’s own rules and standards for factual determinations. See 28 U.S.C.\n§ 2254(e)(1) (“[A] determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The\napplicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”).\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 9\n\n\n Petitioner’s attempt to distinguish Holland is unpersuasive. He argues that “Holland . . .\nis nothing like the instant case because in Holland the TCCA made no clear error,” and the\nTCCA’s statement at issue in that case “was completely true as long as one understood it to refer,\nin accordance with the governing statute, to allegations ‘of fact’—and there was no reason to\nunderstand that statement to mean otherwise.” But the same is true here. Both cases involve the\nargument that the TCCA applied an improperly burdensome standard to a claim of ineffective\nassistance of counsel, contrary to Supreme Court caselaw. And, in Holland, the Supreme Court\nchastised us for treating an ambiguous statement as legal error because we failed to give the\nstate-court opinion the benefit of the doubt. 542 U.S. at 654–55. As noted above, ruling in\npetitioner’s favor would risk the exact same interpretive error—it is just as likely in this case as it\nwas in Holland that the state court applied the higher burden to factual assertions, not the\nStrickland/Lafler prejudice prong. Id.\n\n Holland notwithstanding, petitioner directs us to Vasquez v. Bradshaw, 345 F. App’x 104\n(6th Cir. 2009), which he claims is more analogous to this case. There, we granted a petitioner\nhabeas relief, holding that the Ohio courts did not follow Strickland’s clearly established law\nbecause “the court stated that prejudice occurs only when ‘the result of petitioner’s trial or legal\nproceeding would have been different had defense counsel provided proper representation.’” Id.\nat 110. But Vasquez is unpublished (and therefore not binding on us) and fails to marshal\nsupport for petitioner’s result because the majority’s reasoning in that case is not persuasive. As\nnoted by the Vasquez dissent, the majority made a number of analytical errors that undercut its\nconclusion, and its reasoning was contrary to Holland. See id. at 122–34 (Griffin, J., dissenting)\n(outlining the numerous analytical errors in the majority opinion).2\n\n\n\n\n 2And even if Vasquez were both persuasive and binding on this panel, its reasoning would not control this\ncase because the majority relied upon various deficiencies that aren’t present here. For example, the Ohio court\nexpressed an allegedly erroneous standard for prejudice and then directly relied on it in its analysis. Id. at 110–11\n(majority op.). But here, immediately after stating the higher burden plaintiff alleges the TCCA applied, the opinion\nreiterated the correct Strickland/Lafler standard and concluded that petitioner did not meet it. Johnson, 2014 WL\n793636, at *9. Thus, the TCCA here inoculated itself against concerns that it did not know or apply clearly\nestablished federal law. See Woodford, 537 U.S. at 23–24 (noting that a conclusion that a state court held the\nrespondent to a higher standard of proof than Strickland required based on three or four shorthand references,\ndespite numerous citations of and quotations from Strickland, was error).\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 10\n\n\n Finally, and only in his reply brief, petitioner argues that the TCCA erred in applying the\nclear-and-convincing-evidence standard to the question of whether he would have taken the\ntwenty-year plea offer because, under Tennessee law, the clear-and-convincing-evidence\nstandard only applies to issues of historical fact, not the question of whether petitioner\nhypothetically would have accepted the plea deal had he received effective counsel. We\ntypically do not entertain arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. United States v.\nGalaviz, 645 F.3d 347, 362 (6th Cir. 2011). But even addressing that argument does petitioner\nno better. Giving the opinion the benefit of the doubt, Holland, 542 U.S. at 655, it is clear that\nthe TCCA properly applied its own law. But again, immediately preceding the statement about\nclear and convincing evidence, the TCCA noted three relevant factual determinations:\npetitioner’s equivocal testimony, his consistent assertions of innocence, and his counsel’s\ncredited testimony that petitioner was completely uninterested in any plea. Johnson, 2014 WL\n793636, at *9. These determinations—factual findings and credibility determinations—are\nexactly what Tennessee law requires clear and convincing evidence to refute. See Tenn. Code\nAnn. § 40-30-110(f).\n\n Given the TCCA’s citation of the controlling law (Strickland and Lafler) and the\nfrequency that the proper standard (“reasonable probability”) peppers the opinion—including\nimmediately after the allegedly offending “clear and convincing evidence” statement—the\nTCCA did not act contrary to federal law. See Holland, 542 U.S. at 654–55. And even if we\nwere to disagree with the TCCA on how it applied Strickland/Lafler, our disagreement would\ncertainly be “fair-minded.” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004); see also\nHarrington, 562 U.S. at 102 (noting that even when a federal court of appeals “had little doubt”\nit would find ineffective assistance under de novo review, a state court’s opposite conclusion is\nnot necessarily unreasonable). In sum, petitioner cannot overcome AEDPA’s high bar on this\nground.\n\n B.\n\n Next, petitioner contends that the TCCA made an unreasonable finding of fact when it\nconcluded that he was equivocal on whether he would have accepted the 20-year plea offer had\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 11\n\n\nhe known the actual amount of prison time he faced after trial. Again, we find no error sufficient\nto overcome AEDPA’s substantial deference to state-court decisions.\n\n Under AEDPA, we may only grant a petition for habeas corpus if the state-court\n“adjudication of the claim . . . resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable\ndetermination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”\n28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Furthermore, “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court\nshall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the\npresumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).\n“[A] state-court factual determination is not unreasonable merely because the federal habeas\ncourt would have reached a different conclusion in the first instance.” Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S.\n290, 301 (2010). And we apply the same deference “even to state-court factual findings made on\nappeal.” Franklin v. Bradshaw, 695 F.3d 439, 447 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Rushen v. Spain,\n464 U.S. 114, 120 (1983); Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 546–47 (1981)).\n\n Petitioner claims that he was consistent in his testimony that he would have accepted the\nplea offer had he been properly advised, and that the TCCA mischaracterized his testimony by\ncherry-picking his single use of the word “possible” and amplifying its meaning. Given the\nTCCA’s determination, it is important to consider exactly what petitioner said at the hearing.\nFirst, on direct examination:\n\n Q. Okay. So it’s your position that Mr. Walwyn never conveyed this 20 year\n offer to you?\n A. No.\n Q. If he had, would you have taken it?\n A. I don’t mean no disrespect, but you damn skippy, with 50 something years, I\n would have took 20 years.\n\nThen, on cross-examination:\n\n Q. Were you saying that if you would have known about it, you would have\n plead[ed] guilty to a 20 year sentence on aggravated robbery?\n A. It’s possible, if I knew what I was facing going to trial. It’s highly likely, yes,\n I would have accepted that 20 year deal.\n Q. But you’ve been telling us all morning, you didn’t commit a robbery?\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 12\n\n\n A. The point is, if I’m facing 54 years and my attorney would have explained to\n me, under any circumstance, I would have taken 20 at 35 percent, if I was facing a\n jay walking.\n Q. You threw out the time that you were charged before this trial happened,\n insisted that you were innocent of these charges, right?\n A. True. I tell you I’m innocent today.\n Q. You still say [you’re] innocent?\n A. Most definitely.\n Q. But you would have plead[ed] guilty to aggravated robbery, you’re claiming --\n A. With my background, it’s to the best interest of anybody coming in these\n systems.\n Q. Because you have multiple robberies in your record?\n A. I have a background, yes, I have been -- I committed those charges, and I\n actually plead[ed] guilty to them, because I was guilty. I went to trial on this\n charge because I wasn’t guilty. And if I would have knew that I was, could have\n received a 20 year sentence and my attorney would have consulted me and let me\n know what I was facing, I would have took the 20 years.\n\n(Emphasis added).\n\n Petitioner argues that the TCCA gave undue weight to his use of the word “possible”\nduring cross-examination because “possible” has two distinct meanings: one, the opposite of\nimpossible; the other, a word specifically chosen to reflect a degree of probability (less than\nprobable but within the realm of possibility). He further argues that the context of the quote\nshows that he used “possible” in the first sense—the opposite of “impossible”—and that nothing\nabout his answers on this topic justify a conclusion that he ever meant a probability less than\nlikely. This is a sensible interpretation of his testimony. And it might even be the best\ninterpretation, given the context. But that does not require the conclusion that the TCCA was\nunreasonable for determining that his use of “possible” showed equivocation. See Wood, 558\nU.S. at 301. As the Supreme Court has held, state courts are in a far better position than federal\ncourts to make such findings of fact or credibility, and their conclusions “deserve[] a high\nmeasure of deference.” Rushen, 464 U.S. at 120 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district\ncourt correctly concluded that “[a]lthough [petitioner]’s reading of the transcript is plausible, so\ntoo is that of the TCCA.”\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 13\n\n\n Moreover, the TCCA did not rely solely on this factual determination. Instead, the\nTCCA based its conclusion on petitioner’s equivocal testimony, his consistent assertions of\ninnocence throughout trial and postconviction proceedings, and Walwyn’s testimony that\npetitioner told him he wasn’t interested in taking any plea agreement at all. Johnson, 2014 WL\n793636, at *9. Taking this evidence collectively, then, the TCCA was not unreasonable in\ndetermining that petitioner was uninterested in taking any plea. Wood, 558 U.S. at 301.\nPetitioner’s arguments are insufficient to overcome AEDPA’s required deference to state courts\non factual determinations.\n\n C.\n\n Finally, petitioner claims that the TCCA unreasonably applied the law to the facts when it\nignored that the Strickland prejudice test is objective, not subjective, and wrongly gave more\nweight to petitioner’s equivocal statements than the fact that any reasonable defendant in his\nshoes would have been motivated to take the favorable plea bargain. But yet again, he has not\nmet his heavy burden under AEDPA.\n\n In this argument, petitioner relies on our opinion in Sawaf v. United States, 570 F. App’x\n544 (6th Cir. 2014). There was little doubt that Sawaf’s defense counsel was deficient for\n“fail[ing] to advise him about the applicable sentencing guidelines at any time prior to his trial.”\nId. at 546. This court found presumptive prejudice from his counsel’s deficient performance due\nto the difference between the plea offer (just over three years) and the sentence the petitioner\nreceived after conviction (twenty years). Id. at 547. We criticized the district court because,\nalthough it “acknowledged the general presumption of prejudice ‘created by the significant\ndisparity between the plea offered and the ultimate sentence,’” id. at 548, it nonetheless\nconcluded that Sawaf had failed to show that he would have accepted the government’s offer:\n\n [T]he district court should have started its analysis by assuming that Sawaf had\n been prejudiced with regard to the plea negotiations, and then asked whether there\n was evidence to rebut that presumption. Instead, the district court determined that\n Sawaf’s claim that he would have entered a guilty plea if adequately informed\n was not credible, given Sawaf’s continued insistence that he was innocent, prior\n to and during the trial, after the trial, and even during the evidentiary hearing, and\n effectively declined to credit Sawaf with the applicable presumption of prejudice.\n\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 14\n\n\nId. Though we gave clear-error deference to the trial court’s credibility determination, we still\nreversed for failure to credit Sawaf with the presumption he was due. Id.\n\n Sawaf fails to provide petitioner relief for three reasons. First, Sawaf is distinguishable\nbecause it analyzed a petition arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not § 2254, and therefore\nAEDPA’s “double deference” did not apply. See Harrington, 562 U.S. at 105. Second, and\nrelated to the first point, because petitioner’s case is governed by AEDPA, only state-court\ndecisions that are “contrary to, or involve[] an unreasonable application of, clearly established\nFederal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” merit habeas relief. 28\nU.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (emphasis added). Sawaf is an opinion of this court (and unpublished at\nthat); therefore, it does not constitute “clearly established Federal law.” Id.\n\n Third and finally, it is not at all clear that the TCCA opinion violates Sawaf’s\nprescription. There, we held that a large sentencing disparity between a plea offer and the\nsentence received after trial establishes a mere presumption of prejudice that may be rebutted.\n570 F. App’x at 548. But that’s exactly what the TCCA did here. As we have discussed\nthroughout this opinion, after noting that rule, the fact that “[t]he Sixth Circuit does not require a\ndefendant to support his own assertion that he would have accepted the offer with additional\nobjective evidence,” and the government’s strong case against petitioner, the court proceeded to\nrebut that presumption with its factual findings on petitioner’s equivocal testimony, his\nassertions of innocence, and his attorney’s credited statements. Johnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *9\n(citing Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 2003); Smith v. United States, 348 F.3d\n545 (6th Cir. 2003). While petitioner might argue the merits of the TCCA’s weighing of that\nevidence, that court at least followed the procedures and presumptions we required in Sawaf. In\nsum, he is not entitled to relief on this ground either.\n\n IV.\n\n We affirm the judgment of the district court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Joseph Lamont JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kevin GENOVESE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-28\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0104p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n JOSEPH LAMONT JOHNSON, JR., ┐\\n Petitioner-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5330\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n KEVIN GENOVESE, Warden, │\\n Respondent-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.\\n No. 3:14-cv-02305—Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: March 20, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 28, 2019\\n\\n Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Michael C. Holley, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Nashville, Tennessee, for\\nAppellant. John H. Bledsoe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee,\\nfor Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael C. Holley, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Nashville,\\nTennessee, for Appellant. Nicholas S. Bolduc, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,\\nNashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Petitioner Joseph Johnson was convicted of multiple felonies in Tennessee state court\\narising out of the robbery of a Nashville Taco Bell. He now seeks a writ of habeas corpus,\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 2\\n\\n\\narguing that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by his trial counsel’s deficient\\nperformance in the pretrial plea-negotiation phase of his state-court proceedings and that the\\nstate court’s opposite conclusion was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of\\nfederal law. The district court found no basis for habeas relief and, for the reasons that follow,\\nwe affirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n In November of 2003, petitioner and a friend robbed a Taco Bell of approximately $200\\nto $300. State v. Johnson, M2007-01644-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2567729 at *1–2 (Tenn. Crim.\\nApp. Aug. 18, 2009). Police captured them shortly thereafter. Id. at *3. Petitioner was indicted\\non four charges related to that robbery. Id. at *1. Attorney Paul Walwyn represented petitioner\\nfor pretrial and trial proceedings. A few days before trial began, the state offered a plea deal for\\npetitioner to plead guilty to all counts in exchange “for a 20 year sentence as a range two\\noffender.” He allegedly rejected that offer, though the parties debate some facts surrounding the\\nplea process.\\n\\n So he went to trial, where a Tennessee jury subsequently convicted him of all four\\ncharges: two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of\\nfelony evading arrest, though one aggravated-robbery conviction was later changed to\\naggravated assault due to double jeopardy concerns. Id. at *1, *5. The trial court sentenced him\\nto twenty-eight years’ imprisonment for aggravated robbery, eight years’ imprisonment for one\\nconviction of aggravated assault, ten years’ imprisonment on the other aggravated-assault\\nconviction, and eight years’ imprisonment for evading arrest, all to be served consecutively, for a\\ntotal of fifty-four years in prison. Id. On direct appeal, petitioner raised sufficiency-of-the-\\nevidence claims on all four convictions, challenges to his jury instructions, and challenges to his\\nsentences’ lengths and their consecutive nature. Id. at *5-19. The Tennessee Court of Criminal\\nAppeals (TCCA) affirmed, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied him permission to appeal.\\nSee id., perm. app. denied (Feb. 22, 2010).\\n\\n Petitioner then filed a timely motion for postconviction relief in state court. Among the\\nnumerous issues he raised was a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the plea-\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 3\\n\\n\\nnegotiation process. At an evidentiary hearing on the petition, he testified that his attorney never\\nadvised him of the 20-year plea offer until years after trial, when he received the state’s\\ndiscovery packet. When asked if he would have accepted the offer, petitioner testified variously\\nthat “you damn skippy, with 50 something years, I would have took 20 years,” and “[i]t’s\\npossible, if I knew what I was facing going to trial. It’s highly likely, yes, I would have accepted\\nthat 20 year deal.” But throughout the postconviction proceedings, petitioner maintained his\\ninnocence of the crimes, and even speculated that he may have been misidentified.\\n\\n His trial counsel, Walwyn, also testified at the hearing. On the issue of plea offers,\\nWalwyn stated that he\\n\\n explained to [petitioner], because of his prior record, it’s, you know, the\\n [prosecutor] is taking a hard stance on this case. And basically they’re wanting\\n him to plead to a lot of time, and he said, [“]well, I’m innocent, I didn’t rob\\n anybody, I didn’t do it.[”] He always said the same thing . . . . But in any event,\\n even prior to the trial, he basically said that I’m not taking a deal of any sort.\\n\\nHe later reiterated that he “did relay the offer” to petitioner, but petitioner told him “he was not\\ntaking any time for this.”\\n\\n The postconviction court denied petitioner relief in a written order, crediting Walwyn’s\\ntestimony that he communicated the offer and that petitioner was not interested in taking any\\nplea agreement. Petitioner again appealed to the TCCA, which again affirmed. Johnson v. State,\\nM2012-02310-CCA-R3-PC, 2014 WL 793636, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 27, 2014). For the\\nfirst time, the TCCA expanded petitioner’s claim from one in which his trial counsel never\\nconveyed the plea offer to him, to an additional ineffectiveness claim—that Walwyn conveyed\\nthe plea offer but did not advise petitioner of the much higher, consecutive sentence he could\\nface after trial. Id. at 7. Addressing this new formulation, the TCCA reasoned that Walwyn’s\\nperformance was deficient, but petitioner could not establish prejudice. Id. at *8–9. The court\\nrecited the pertinent standards for determining ineffective assistance in the plea context and\\nspecifically quoted Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), for the standard a defendant must\\nmeet to show prejudice in the plea-negotiation context. Johnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *8–9.\\nThe court reasoned that, despite the big disparity between the plea offer and the possible\\nsentence petitioner faced after trial, he could not show prejudice because he was uninterested in\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 4\\n\\n\\ntakin any plea offer at the time. Id. at *9. The Tennessee Supreme Court again denied him\\npermission to appeal. See id., perm. app. denied (Jul. 14, 2014).\\n\\n Petitioner then timely filed this petition for habeas corpus. He raised numerous claims of\\nineffective assistance, including that Walwyn provided constitutionally deficient counsel during\\nthe plea-negotiation stage. In a thorough opinion, the district court dismissed the petition. On\\nthe pertinent ineffective-assistance issue, the district court determined that the TCCA opinion did\\nnot contradict or unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, nor did that court base its\\ndecision on an unreasonable determination of the facts. We granted a certificate of appealability\\nlimited to his claim of ineffective assistance during plea bargaining.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n “In an appeal from the denial of habeas relief, we review the district court’s legal\\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” Scott v. Houk, 760 F.3d 497, 503\\n(6th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of\\n1996 (AEDPA), we can overturn a state conviction for an issue adjudicated on the merits only if\\nthe relevant state-court decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application\\nof, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;” or\\n(2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.”\\n28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). When a habeas petition arising under § 2254(d) is based upon a claim of\\nineffective assistance of counsel, relief is all the more difficult to come by. The standard for\\n§ 2254(d) relief and the test for ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.\\n668 (1984), are each “highly deferential.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011)\\n(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). “[A]nd when the two apply in tandem, review is ‘doubly’\\nso.” Id. (quoting Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 (2009)).\\n\\n III.\\n\\n The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . .\\nhave the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. It includes “the right to\\neffective counsel—which imposes a baseline requirement of competence.” United States v.\\nGonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148 (2006) (emphasis added). And it applies at all critical stages\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 5\\n\\n\\nof criminal litigation, including pretrial plea proceedings. Logan v. United States, 910 F.3d 864,\\n868 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 140 (2012)). A defendant who rejects\\nor otherwise misses out on a formal plea offer because of deficient performance or erroneous\\nadvice can establish ineffective assistance of counsel only if he satisfies the well-known\\nStrickland standard. Lafler, 566 U.S. at 172–74.\\n\\n Under Strickland’s two-part framework, a criminal defendant claiming ineffective\\nassistance during plea negotiations must prove that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient, i.e.,\\n“counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the\\ndefendant by the Sixth Amendment,” and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.\\n466 U.S. at 687. The parties essentially agree (or don’t contest) that defendant’s trial counsel\\nperformed deficiently. We too assume as much and turn our attention to prejudice. “To show\\nprejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel where a plea offer has lapsed or been rejected\\nbecause of counsel’s deficient performance, defendants must demonstrate a reasonable\\nprobability they would have accepted the earlier plea offer had they been afforded effective\\nassistance of counsel.” Frye, 566 U.S. at 147.\\n\\n Recognizing the high bar AEDPA has placed in front of him, petitioner raises challenges\\nto three aspects of the TCCA decision: (1) that court’s erroneous legal analysis of the ineffective-\\nassistance issue, (2) its incorrect and unreasonable factual determination about his willingness to\\naccept a plea, and (3) its unreasonable application of the law to the facts. We address each\\ncontention in turn.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n Petitioner’s first argument is that the TCCA legally erred by applying an impermissibly\\nhigh burden of proof to his charge of ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree. For this, he\\nfocuses on two sentences in the TCCA’s opinion:\\n\\n In light of the postconviction court’s factual finding that the petitioner was “not\\n interested in taking any plea” and other evidence suggesting that the petitioner\\n was not interested in plea bargaining, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to\\n establish by clear and convincing evidence that he would have taken the twenty-\\n year plea offer. Accordingly, the petitioner has not shown a reasonable\\n probability that, but for trial counsel’s failure to alert him to his potential\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 6\\n\\n\\n sentencing exposure, the plea offer would have been presented to and accepted by\\n the sentencing court.\\n\\nJohnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *9 (emphasis added). That clear-and-convincing-evidence\\nstandard, petitioner claims, is contrary to clearly established federal law.\\n\\n Petitioner must show that the state court “arrive[d] at a conclusion opposite to that\\nreached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law” or that it “confront[ed] facts that are\\nmaterially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrive[d] at a result\\nopposite” to that reached by the Supreme Court. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 (2000).\\nAEDPA’s “contrary to” clause means “‘diametrically different,’ ‘opposite in character or\\nnature,’ or ‘mutually opposed.’” Id. (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 495\\n(1976)). “The text of § 2254(d)(1) therefore suggests that the state court’s decision must be\\nsubstantially different from the relevant precedent of [the Supreme] Court.” Id.; see also Ivory v.\\nJackson, 509 F.3d 284, 291 (6th Cir. 2007).\\n\\n In Lafler, the Supreme Court reiterated that the Strickland prejudice standard applied to\\nplea-bargaining. 566 U.S. at 163. In this context, a defendant must show that the outcome of the\\nplea process would have been different with competent advice. Id. And when counsel’s\\ndeficient advice leads to the rejection of a plea, “a defendant must show that but for the\\nineffective advice of counsel there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have\\nbeen presented to the court . . . , that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the\\nconviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under\\nthe judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed.” Id. at 164 (emphasis added).\\n\\n A reasonable probability, the Court has held, “is a probability sufficient to undermine\\nconfidence in the outcome,” which “requires a substantial . . . likelihood of a different result,”\\n“not just [a] conceivable” one. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 189 (2011) (quoting\\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 694; Harrington, 562 U.S. at 112) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\nBut the standard does not “require a showing that counsel’s actions ‘more likely than not altered\\nthe outcome.’” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 111–12 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693). Instead,\\nit is sufficient to show that a different outcome was “reasonably likely.” Id. at 111 (quoting\\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 696). In any event, petitioner argues that the proper prejudice standard\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 7\\n\\n\\nunder Supreme Court precedent falls well short of the “clear and convincing” standard the TCCA\\napplied.\\n\\n The district court held that Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649 (2004) (per curiam),\\ncontrolled on this issue, and required the rejection of petitioner’s claim. In Holland, the Supreme\\nCourt reversed our court, concluding that we erred in “holding that the state court acted contrary\\nto federal law by requiring proof of prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence standard rather\\nthan by a reasonable probability.” Id. at 654. There, as here, the opinion we interpreted came\\nfrom the TCCA. The Supreme Court noted that the TCCA began its analysis in that case by\\nreciting the correct Strickland standard, before stating that, “[i]n a post-conviction proceeding,\\nthe defendant has the burden of proving his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.\\n(emphasis added). But the court disagreed with our interpretation of that statement as applying a\\nhigher burden on the defendant:\\n\\n In context, however, this statement is reasonably read as addressing the general\\n burden of proof in postconviction proceedings with regard to factual\\n contentions—for example, those relating to whether defense counsel’s\\n performance was deficient. Although it is possible to read it as referring also to\\n the question whether the deficiency was prejudicial, thereby supplanting\\n Strickland, such a reading would needlessly create internal inconsistency in the\\n opinion.\\n\\nId. After noting two other portions of the TCCA opinion that this court erroneously faulted for\\napplying an incorrect burden, the Court chastised us for violating two of its prescriptions in state-\\nhabeas cases: (1) “state-court decisions [must] be given the benefit of the doubt,” and\\n(2) “[r]eadiness to attribute error is inconsistent with the presumption that state courts know and\\nfollow the law.” Id. at 655 (quoting Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam)).\\nTherefore, the Court reversed our grant of habeas relief to the defendant. Id.\\n\\n The district court correctly concluded Holland controls on this issue. Treating the\\nTCCA’s reference to a “clear and convincing evidence” standard and a “reasonable probability”\\nstandard in back-to-back sentences as a clear legal error “is inconsistent with the presumption\\nthat state courts know and follow the law.” Id. Earlier in the opinion, in the standard of review\\nsection, the TCCA cited Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-110(f) for the proposition that “a petitioner\\nmust prove his allegations of fact by clear and convincing evidence” in postconviction\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 8\\n\\n\\nproceedings. Johnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *6.1 Thus, as in Holland, a fair reading of the\\nopinion is that the “clear and convincing evidence” line “address[es] the general burden of proof\\nin postconviction proceedings with regard to factual contentions.” 542 U.S. at 654.\\n\\n And the TCCA opinion bolsters our conclusion by listing, immediately before the “clear\\nand convincing evidence” sentence, three pieces of “evidence which suggest[ed] the petitioner\\nwould not have accepted any plea offer.” Johnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *9. First, the TCCA\\ndetermined that “petitioner’s own testimony on the issue was equivocal, as he testified at times\\nthat he would have taken the offer and at other times that it was ‘highly likely’ or ‘possible’ that\\nhe would have.” Id. Second, it noted that he “maintained his innocence throughout the trial and\\npost-conviction proceedings.” Id. Third, the TCCA cited the postconviction court’s crediting of\\npetitioner’s counsel, who “testified that petitioner was adamantly opposed from the beginning to\\ntaking a plea offer, and [who] testified that the petitioner did not want to plead guilty because he\\nsteadfastly maintained that he was innocent of the crime.” Id. Thus, reading this opinion\\nwithout readiness to attribute error, the TCCA opinion can reasonably be interpreted as holding\\nthat petitioner failed to rebut these factual conclusions made by the postconviction trial court.\\nSee Holland, 542 U.S. at 655.\\n\\n As a result, the opinion is best read as merely noting the Tennessee rule in postconviction\\nproceedings that a petitioner must prove his allegations of fact by clear and convincing evidence.\\nAnd the propriety of the court’s decision is reinforced by its express use of the correct\\nstandard—“a reasonable probability”—in coming to its conclusion. Johnson, 2014 WL 793636,\\nat *9. To read the TCCA’s opinion as petitioner urges “would needlessly create internal\\ninconsistency in the opinion,” Holland, 542 U.S. at 654, and would force us to ignore the\\nTCCA’s recitation of the Strickland/Lafler standard in the very next sentence. Instead, reading\\nthe opinion fairly, the TCCA’s decision is neither contrary to, nor or does it involve an\\nunreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and the\\ndeferential review we apply to state-court decisions precludes relief on this issue.\\n\\n\\n 1This rule is consistent with AEDPA’s own rules and standards for factual determinations. See 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 2254(e)(1) (“[A] determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The\\napplicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”).\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 9\\n\\n\\n Petitioner’s attempt to distinguish Holland is unpersuasive. He argues that “Holland . . .\\nis nothing like the instant case because in Holland the TCCA made no clear error,” and the\\nTCCA’s statement at issue in that case “was completely true as long as one understood it to refer,\\nin accordance with the governing statute, to allegations ‘of fact’—and there was no reason to\\nunderstand that statement to mean otherwise.” But the same is true here. Both cases involve the\\nargument that the TCCA applied an improperly burdensome standard to a claim of ineffective\\nassistance of counsel, contrary to Supreme Court caselaw. And, in Holland, the Supreme Court\\nchastised us for treating an ambiguous statement as legal error because we failed to give the\\nstate-court opinion the benefit of the doubt. 542 U.S. at 654–55. As noted above, ruling in\\npetitioner’s favor would risk the exact same interpretive error—it is just as likely in this case as it\\nwas in Holland that the state court applied the higher burden to factual assertions, not the\\nStrickland/Lafler prejudice prong. Id.\\n\\n Holland notwithstanding, petitioner directs us to Vasquez v. Bradshaw, 345 F. App’x 104\\n(6th Cir. 2009), which he claims is more analogous to this case. There, we granted a petitioner\\nhabeas relief, holding that the Ohio courts did not follow Strickland’s clearly established law\\nbecause “the court stated that prejudice occurs only when ‘the result of petitioner’s trial or legal\\nproceeding would have been different had defense counsel provided proper representation.’” Id.\\nat 110. But Vasquez is unpublished (and therefore not binding on us) and fails to marshal\\nsupport for petitioner’s result because the majority’s reasoning in that case is not persuasive. As\\nnoted by the Vasquez dissent, the majority made a number of analytical errors that undercut its\\nconclusion, and its reasoning was contrary to Holland. See id. at 122–34 (Griffin, J., dissenting)\\n(outlining the numerous analytical errors in the majority opinion).2\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2And even if Vasquez were both persuasive and binding on this panel, its reasoning would not control this\\ncase because the majority relied upon various deficiencies that aren’t present here. For example, the Ohio court\\nexpressed an allegedly erroneous standard for prejudice and then directly relied on it in its analysis. Id. at 110–11\\n(majority op.). But here, immediately after stating the higher burden plaintiff alleges the TCCA applied, the opinion\\nreiterated the correct Strickland/Lafler standard and concluded that petitioner did not meet it. Johnson, 2014 WL\\n793636, at *9. Thus, the TCCA here inoculated itself against concerns that it did not know or apply clearly\\nestablished federal law. See Woodford, 537 U.S. at 23–24 (noting that a conclusion that a state court held the\\nrespondent to a higher standard of proof than Strickland required based on three or four shorthand references,\\ndespite numerous citations of and quotations from Strickland, was error).\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 10\\n\\n\\n Finally, and only in his reply brief, petitioner argues that the TCCA erred in applying the\\nclear-and-convincing-evidence standard to the question of whether he would have taken the\\ntwenty-year plea offer because, under Tennessee law, the clear-and-convincing-evidence\\nstandard only applies to issues of historical fact, not the question of whether petitioner\\nhypothetically would have accepted the plea deal had he received effective counsel. We\\ntypically do not entertain arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. United States v.\\nGalaviz, 645 F.3d 347, 362 (6th Cir. 2011). But even addressing that argument does petitioner\\nno better. Giving the opinion the benefit of the doubt, Holland, 542 U.S. at 655, it is clear that\\nthe TCCA properly applied its own law. But again, immediately preceding the statement about\\nclear and convincing evidence, the TCCA noted three relevant factual determinations:\\npetitioner’s equivocal testimony, his consistent assertions of innocence, and his counsel’s\\ncredited testimony that petitioner was completely uninterested in any plea. Johnson, 2014 WL\\n793636, at *9. These determinations—factual findings and credibility determinations—are\\nexactly what Tennessee law requires clear and convincing evidence to refute. See Tenn. Code\\nAnn. § 40-30-110(f).\\n\\n Given the TCCA’s citation of the controlling law (Strickland and Lafler) and the\\nfrequency that the proper standard (“reasonable probability”) peppers the opinion—including\\nimmediately after the allegedly offending “clear and convincing evidence” statement—the\\nTCCA did not act contrary to federal law. See Holland, 542 U.S. at 654–55. And even if we\\nwere to disagree with the TCCA on how it applied Strickland/Lafler, our disagreement would\\ncertainly be “fair-minded.” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004); see also\\nHarrington, 562 U.S. at 102 (noting that even when a federal court of appeals “had little doubt”\\nit would find ineffective assistance under de novo review, a state court’s opposite conclusion is\\nnot necessarily unreasonable). In sum, petitioner cannot overcome AEDPA’s high bar on this\\nground.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Next, petitioner contends that the TCCA made an unreasonable finding of fact when it\\nconcluded that he was equivocal on whether he would have accepted the 20-year plea offer had\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 11\\n\\n\\nhe known the actual amount of prison time he faced after trial. Again, we find no error sufficient\\nto overcome AEDPA’s substantial deference to state-court decisions.\\n\\n Under AEDPA, we may only grant a petition for habeas corpus if the state-court\\n“adjudication of the claim . . . resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable\\ndetermination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”\\n28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Furthermore, “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court\\nshall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the\\npresumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).\\n“[A] state-court factual determination is not unreasonable merely because the federal habeas\\ncourt would have reached a different conclusion in the first instance.” Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S.\\n290, 301 (2010). And we apply the same deference “even to state-court factual findings made on\\nappeal.” Franklin v. Bradshaw, 695 F.3d 439, 447 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Rushen v. Spain,\\n464 U.S. 114, 120 (1983); Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 546–47 (1981)).\\n\\n Petitioner claims that he was consistent in his testimony that he would have accepted the\\nplea offer had he been properly advised, and that the TCCA mischaracterized his testimony by\\ncherry-picking his single use of the word “possible” and amplifying its meaning. Given the\\nTCCA’s determination, it is important to consider exactly what petitioner said at the hearing.\\nFirst, on direct examination:\\n\\n Q. Okay. So it’s your position that Mr. Walwyn never conveyed this 20 year\\n offer to you?\\n A. No.\\n Q. If he had, would you have taken it?\\n A. I don’t mean no disrespect, but you damn skippy, with 50 something years, I\\n would have took 20 years.\\n\\nThen, on cross-examination:\\n\\n Q. Were you saying that if you would have known about it, you would have\\n plead[ed] guilty to a 20 year sentence on aggravated robbery?\\n A. It’s possible, if I knew what I was facing going to trial. It’s highly likely, yes,\\n I would have accepted that 20 year deal.\\n Q. But you’ve been telling us all morning, you didn’t commit a robbery?\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 12\\n\\n\\n A. The point is, if I’m facing 54 years and my attorney would have explained to\\n me, under any circumstance, I would have taken 20 at 35 percent, if I was facing a\\n jay walking.\\n Q. You threw out the time that you were charged before this trial happened,\\n insisted that you were innocent of these charges, right?\\n A. True. I tell you I’m innocent today.\\n Q. You still say [you’re] innocent?\\n A. Most definitely.\\n Q. But you would have plead[ed] guilty to aggravated robbery, you’re claiming --\\n A. With my background, it’s to the best interest of anybody coming in these\\n systems.\\n Q. Because you have multiple robberies in your record?\\n A. I have a background, yes, I have been -- I committed those charges, and I\\n actually plead[ed] guilty to them, because I was guilty. I went to trial on this\\n charge because I wasn’t guilty. And if I would have knew that I was, could have\\n received a 20 year sentence and my attorney would have consulted me and let me\\n know what I was facing, I would have took the 20 years.\\n\\n(Emphasis added).\\n\\n Petitioner argues that the TCCA gave undue weight to his use of the word “possible”\\nduring cross-examination because “possible” has two distinct meanings: one, the opposite of\\nimpossible; the other, a word specifically chosen to reflect a degree of probability (less than\\nprobable but within the realm of possibility). He further argues that the context of the quote\\nshows that he used “possible” in the first sense—the opposite of “impossible”—and that nothing\\nabout his answers on this topic justify a conclusion that he ever meant a probability less than\\nlikely. This is a sensible interpretation of his testimony. And it might even be the best\\ninterpretation, given the context. But that does not require the conclusion that the TCCA was\\nunreasonable for determining that his use of “possible” showed equivocation. See Wood, 558\\nU.S. at 301. As the Supreme Court has held, state courts are in a far better position than federal\\ncourts to make such findings of fact or credibility, and their conclusions “deserve[] a high\\nmeasure of deference.” Rushen, 464 U.S. at 120 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district\\ncourt correctly concluded that “[a]lthough [petitioner]’s reading of the transcript is plausible, so\\ntoo is that of the TCCA.”\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 13\\n\\n\\n Moreover, the TCCA did not rely solely on this factual determination. Instead, the\\nTCCA based its conclusion on petitioner’s equivocal testimony, his consistent assertions of\\ninnocence throughout trial and postconviction proceedings, and Walwyn’s testimony that\\npetitioner told him he wasn’t interested in taking any plea agreement at all. Johnson, 2014 WL\\n793636, at *9. Taking this evidence collectively, then, the TCCA was not unreasonable in\\ndetermining that petitioner was uninterested in taking any plea. Wood, 558 U.S. at 301.\\nPetitioner’s arguments are insufficient to overcome AEDPA’s required deference to state courts\\non factual determinations.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n Finally, petitioner claims that the TCCA unreasonably applied the law to the facts when it\\nignored that the Strickland prejudice test is objective, not subjective, and wrongly gave more\\nweight to petitioner’s equivocal statements than the fact that any reasonable defendant in his\\nshoes would have been motivated to take the favorable plea bargain. But yet again, he has not\\nmet his heavy burden under AEDPA.\\n\\n In this argument, petitioner relies on our opinion in Sawaf v. United States, 570 F. App’x\\n544 (6th Cir. 2014). There was little doubt that Sawaf’s defense counsel was deficient for\\n“fail[ing] to advise him about the applicable sentencing guidelines at any time prior to his trial.”\\nId. at 546. This court found presumptive prejudice from his counsel’s deficient performance due\\nto the difference between the plea offer (just over three years) and the sentence the petitioner\\nreceived after conviction (twenty years). Id. at 547. We criticized the district court because,\\nalthough it “acknowledged the general presumption of prejudice ‘created by the significant\\ndisparity between the plea offered and the ultimate sentence,’” id. at 548, it nonetheless\\nconcluded that Sawaf had failed to show that he would have accepted the government’s offer:\\n\\n [T]he district court should have started its analysis by assuming that Sawaf had\\n been prejudiced with regard to the plea negotiations, and then asked whether there\\n was evidence to rebut that presumption. Instead, the district court determined that\\n Sawaf’s claim that he would have entered a guilty plea if adequately informed\\n was not credible, given Sawaf’s continued insistence that he was innocent, prior\\n to and during the trial, after the trial, and even during the evidentiary hearing, and\\n effectively declined to credit Sawaf with the applicable presumption of prejudice.\\n\\f No. 18-5330 Johnson v. Genovese Page 14\\n\\n\\nId. Though we gave clear-error deference to the trial court’s credibility determination, we still\\nreversed for failure to credit Sawaf with the presumption he was due. Id.\\n\\n Sawaf fails to provide petitioner relief for three reasons. First, Sawaf is distinguishable\\nbecause it analyzed a petition arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not § 2254, and therefore\\nAEDPA’s “double deference” did not apply. See Harrington, 562 U.S. at 105. Second, and\\nrelated to the first point, because petitioner’s case is governed by AEDPA, only state-court\\ndecisions that are “contrary to, or involve[] an unreasonable application of, clearly established\\nFederal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” merit habeas relief. 28\\nU.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (emphasis added). Sawaf is an opinion of this court (and unpublished at\\nthat); therefore, it does not constitute “clearly established Federal law.” Id.\\n\\n Third and finally, it is not at all clear that the TCCA opinion violates Sawaf’s\\nprescription. There, we held that a large sentencing disparity between a plea offer and the\\nsentence received after trial establishes a mere presumption of prejudice that may be rebutted.\\n570 F. App’x at 548. But that’s exactly what the TCCA did here. As we have discussed\\nthroughout this opinion, after noting that rule, the fact that “[t]he Sixth Circuit does not require a\\ndefendant to support his own assertion that he would have accepted the offer with additional\\nobjective evidence,” and the government’s strong case against petitioner, the court proceeded to\\nrebut that presumption with its factual findings on petitioner’s equivocal testimony, his\\nassertions of innocence, and his attorney’s credited statements. Johnson, 2014 WL 793636, at *9\\n(citing Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 2003); Smith v. United States, 348 F.3d\\n545 (6th Cir. 2003). While petitioner might argue the merits of the TCCA’s weighing of that\\nevidence, that court at least followed the procedures and presumptions we required in Sawaf. In\\nsum, he is not entitled to relief on this ground either.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n We affirm the judgment of the district court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2093,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4623792,"string":"4,623,792"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Dawn GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN; Brian Bassett ; Keith Birberick; Mark LaBrosse, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Dawn Green v. City of Southfield, Mich."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-28"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1758/1775"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Sutton, Murphy\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888600/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"030concurrence\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888601/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0106p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n DAWN GREEN, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > Nos. 18-1758/1775\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN; BRIAN BASSETT; │\\n KEITH BIRBERICK; MARK LABROSSE, │\\n Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:15-cv-13479—Sean F. Cox, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 28, 2019\\n\\n Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: D. Rick Martin, GLOTTA & ASSOCIATES, Detroit, Michigan, for\\nAppellant/Cross-Appellee. Michael T. Berger, SEWARD HENDERSON PLLC, Royal Oak,\\nMichigan, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.\\n\\n SUTTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which MURPHY, J., joined, and\\nMOORE, J., joined in the judgment. MURPHY, J. (pp. 9–13), delivered a separate concurring\\nopinion in which SUTTON, J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 14–16), delivered a separate opinion\\nconcurring in the judgment.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Two cars collided in a busy intersection in a Detroit suburb.\\nThe police decided that one of the drivers, Dawn Green, ran a red light, and said so in the\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\naccident report, though they opted not to give her a ticket. Green sued the three officers and their\\nemployer, the City of Southfield, alleging that the investigation of the accident violated the U.S.\\nConstitution. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We affirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n One afternoon in October 2012, Green was driving west on Eight Mile Road in\\nSouthfield, Michigan, twenty minutes north of Detroit. William Patterson was heading\\nnorthbound on Southfield Road, taking his grandson to a medical appointment. The two vehicles\\ncollided in the intersection, Patterson’s SUV ramming the driver-side door of Green’s sedan.\\nAfter impact, the SUV blocked the intersection and Green’s car came to rest at a traffic median\\nseveral hundred feet away.\\n\\n According to Green, she was briefly knocked unconscious and, after coming to, was\\ndazed and in intense pain, struggling to “recall[ ] everything that occurred.” R. 185-6 at 7. Other\\ndrivers pulled over to help Green, disoriented and with glass in her face, climb out of her car and\\nlay down on the median.\\n\\n Southfield Officer Rafid Maya arrived at the scene soon after the accident. He spoke\\nbriefly with Patterson, who was out of his car and didn’t look injured. Maya then went to Green,\\nstill on her back on the median, appearing stiff and unable to move her limbs. Because Green\\n“didn’t respond too many times,” saying just “a few words here and there,” Maya refrained from\\nasking many questions after getting her identification. R. 185-3 at 6–7.\\n\\n Traffic Specialist Keith Birberick arrived within a few minutes of Maya. By then,\\nparamedics were looking after Green, and Birberick initially blocked traffic at Patterson’s end of\\nthe crash scene. When he came over to Green, she was on a gurney in an ambulance. He spoke\\nto Green briefly, as Maya told him Green couldn’t remember the accident. Patterson relayed that\\nhe had just entered the intersection with a green light when his car “was struck” by Green’s car.\\nR. 185-7 at 5–6. Birberick did not speak to Patterson’s fifteen-year-old grandson, because he\\nbelieved that, as a passenger, the grandson was not an “independent witness” and that the\\naccident was not severe enough to warrant significant investigation. Id. at 6. Birberick\\ndetermined that the physical evidence—the degree and location of the vehicles’ respective\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\ndamage, the absence of skid marks around Green’s vehicle, and the spot where Green’s vehicle\\ncame to rest—corroborated Patterson’s account.\\n\\n Birberick did not consider the accident serious enough for criminal proceedings or a\\ntraffic ticket, so he did not complete a police incident report. He instead filled out the crash\\nreport that the State of Michigan requires for highway-safety planning purposes when car\\naccidents lead to injuries. Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 257.622, 257.624(1). In the form’s “Hazardous\\nAction” box, Birberick wrote “none” for Patterson and “disregarded traffic [signal]” for Green.\\nR. 185-2 at 2–3. Michigan law provides that such crash reports “shall not be available for use in\\na court action.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.624(1).\\n\\n Green was hospitalized for several days. When she saw the accident report, she\\ncontacted Detective Mark LaBrosse at the Southfield Police Department, insisting it was\\nPatterson who ran the light and that she had an eye witness, Douglas Harris, to back her up.\\nLaBrosse followed up with Harris and Patterson as well as with Officer Maya and Specialist\\nBirberick, but LaBrosse and his supervisor (Sergeant Brian Bassett) decided against amending\\nthe report. LaBrosse simply added Harris as a potential witness and ordered the records bureau\\nto attach his affidavit to the report.\\n\\n Green sued Patterson in state court, eventually settling her negligence claim after\\ndiscovery, case evaluation, and court-ordered facilitation. She then filed this § 1983 and § 1985\\naction against officers Birberick, LaBrosse, Bassett, and the City of Southfield, alleging that the\\ninvestigation of the accident violated her equal protection rights under the Fourteenth\\nAmendment and her right of access to the courts under the First (and Fourteenth) Amendment.\\nThe district court concluded that the officers deserved qualified immunity and granted summary\\njudgment to several of the defendants. The court refused each side’s request for sanctions\\nagainst the other. Green appeals, and the defendants cross-appeal.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Qualified immunity protects police officers from liability for actions that do not violate\\nclearly established rights apparent to a reasonable officer standing in their shoes. Harlow v.\\nFitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). At issue on summary judgment is whether a material-fact\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\ndispute stands in the way of the officers’ qualified-immunity defense or whether they are entitled\\nto judgment as a matter of law. Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep’t, 785 F.3d 1128, 1131\\n(6th Cir. 2015); see Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 768 (2014). As the opponent of\\nsummary judgment, Green gets the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the record.\\nNorthrup, 785 F.3d at 1131.\\n\\n Equal protection. Green claims that the police officers discriminated against her based\\non race and sex. More specifically, she alleges that Specialist Birberick did not ask for her\\naccount of the crash because she is a black woman but asked for Patterson’s account of the\\naccident because he is a white man. Detective LaBrosse and Sergeant Bassett’s follow-up\\ninvestigation, she adds, revealed a similar bias.\\n\\n The legal premise of her claim is correct. The Equal Protection Clause forbids the State\\nfrom denying to “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const.\\namend. XIV, § 1. So too do § 1983 and § 1985, which prohibit state employees from violating a\\nperson’s constitutional rights in the first instance, and conspiring to deprive someone of equal\\nprotection in the second. The upshot for purposes of this case is that a party alleging race or sex\\ndiscrimination must show that the challenged law-enforcement practice “had a discriminatory\\neffect and was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Cornwell v. Bradshaw, 559 F.3d 398,\\n411 (6th Cir. 2009). And to prove a discriminatory effect, the plaintiff must show that similarly\\nsituated individuals were not subject to the challenged police actions. See Abdul-Khaliq v. City\\nof Newark, 275 F. App’x 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2008).\\n\\n The factual premise of her claim, however, is incorrect. Green and Patterson were not\\nsimilarly situated, and those differences justified the way the officers responded to the accident.\\nBirberick testified that he did not ask Green what happened because Officer Maya told him she\\ncouldn’t remember. All of the evidence, including Green’s own testimony, confirms Maya’s\\nsummation: She was “dazed,” “confused,” “out of it,” “disoriented,” and struggling to respond\\nto questions. R. 185-3 at 6; R. 185-6 at 7; R. 185-19 at 2. On top of that, she lay on the ground,\\nvisibly injured, and in intense pain. Patterson by contrast was on his feet, uninjured, and ready to\\ndescribe the collision. Birberick had ample reason to ask Patterson what happened but not to ask\\nGreen the same.\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n Green protests that we are required to accept as true her assertion that she would have\\ngiven a statement if asked. But that assertion appears in an affidavit that (apparently) never\\nmade it into the summary judgment record before the district court. The relevant point at any\\nrate isn’t whether Birberick could have coaxed Green’s story out of her had he tried; it’s whether\\nhe had good reason to leave her alone. No material-fact dispute clouds that issue.\\n\\n Pushing the point one step further, Green invokes the testimony of Douglas Harris, who\\nwas at the scene and who allegedly testified that Green could communicate and that no police\\nofficer came to talk to her. But a perusal of Harris’s testimony does not turn up any such\\nstatement. Harris in fact said that he did “[n]ot really talk[]” to Green because “she was in a\\ndaze,” and that he left the scene without attempting to speak to anyone. R. 196-2 at 8. In the\\nabsence of any differential treatment of similarly situated individuals, Green’s equal protection\\ntheories of relief fail as a matter of law.\\n\\n Access to courts. Green also claims that Specialist Birberick’s failure to solicit\\nstatements from witnesses at the accident scene crippled her lawsuit against Patterson, forcing\\nher to settle for a lower amount—$95,000—than she deserved. Here, too, the legal predicate of\\nher claim is correct but the factual predicate is not.\\n\\n The Constitution protects an individual’s access to the judicial system—the right to bring\\na non-frivolous claim in a court of law. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n.12\\n(2002). That right extends to protection from government conspiracies to destroy evidence if\\nthose actions prevent a plaintiff from having an “adequate remedy on the underlying claim.”\\nFlagg v. City of Detroit, 715 F.3d 165, 173 (6th Cir. 2013); see Swekel v. City of River Rouge,\\n119 F.3d 1259, 1262 (6th Cir. 1997). At the same time, a difference exists between an “active\\nconcealment” or destruction of evidence on the one hand and a failure to “pursue all possible\\nleads” on the other. Kelso v. City of Toledo, 77 F. App’x 826, 832–33 (6th Cir. 2003); see Flores\\nv. Satz, 137 F.3d 1275, 1278 & n.7 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Mere “laxity in investigation”\\nis not a constitutional violation. Kelso, 77 F. App’x at 833.\\n\\n This case falls (at worst) on the “mere laxity” side of the line. As in Kelso, “[t]he police\\nmight have discovered greater evidence [to support the plaintiff’s state claim] had they\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\ninvestigated further.” Id. at 832–33. But no one claims that Birberick took witness statements\\nand then destroyed them, or that he deleted case notes or log sheets to deprive Green of favorable\\nevidence. See Flagg, 715 F.3d at 169–71, 178; Swekel, 119 F.3d at 1260, 1264.\\n\\n Failure to solicit additional witness statements, when the physical evidence supports the\\nonly account offered at the scene, is a sizeable step removed from that problem. Still further\\nremoved is the failure to canvas for the identity of additional witnesses. No witnesses\\napproached Birberick or Maya. It appears that no witnesses remained at the scene by the time\\nBirberick came over to Green, as the friendly drivers who helped Green out of her car left when\\nthe paramedics put her in the ambulance, and Birberick came over only afterwards. On this\\nrecord, no cognizable access-to-the-courts claim exists.\\n\\n Municipal liability. Green adds that the police department maintains an unconstitutional\\npolicy of not investigating citizen complaints if they think a lawsuit is in the offing. But because\\nher related claims against the officers fail on the merits, her municipal liability claim premised\\non those claims necessarily fails as well. City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986)\\n(per curiam); D’Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378, 391 (6th Cir. 2014).\\n\\n Motion to amend the complaint. Green separately challenges the court’s denial of her\\nmotion to file what would have been her seventh complaint. The Civil Rules grant plaintiffs the\\nchance to file one no-questions-asked amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). After that,\\nthey need permission, which the court should “freely” grant in the ordinary course, id. at\\n15(a)(2), but which it may deny for a host of reasons—undue delay being one of them, see\\nFoman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Abuse of discretion is the watch phrase on appeal.\\nId.\\n\\n After filing her original complaint and her first amended complaint, Green filed two more\\nwithout permission. After that, however, the court gave her a strict deadline for any more\\namendments. She timely moved for another, but then filed a different version before the court\\ngranted her motion. Nine months later (over a year after the lawsuit began), Green moved to file\\nyet another amended complaint, her seventh in all, this time seeking to add five defendants, all of\\nwhom she knew about from the outset of the case. Because the Federal Rules command just one\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nfree pass, not seven, and because she did not have a good explanation for the last amendment, the\\ndistrict court did not abuse its discretion in denying Green’s motion.\\n\\n Discovery sanctions. Green appeals the court’s denial of her motion for discovery\\nsanctions under Civil Rules 26 and 37, and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, as well as under the court’s\\ninherent authority, Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43–44 (1991). We review for abuse\\nof discretion, id. at 55; see Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990), and find\\nnone. The court reasonably explained that it would not impose sanctions because the defendants\\neventually produced the materials Green wanted, because none of the late-produced materials\\naffected the case’s outcome, and because Green’s counsel contributed his share of unnecessary\\ndelay and expense.\\n\\n Green argues that the court should have analyzed each discovery allegation separately.\\nBut the court’s explanation for denying sanctions applies to each one. On top of that, Green\\nsuggests that the court failed to consider the correct legal standard. The court did not cite the\\nstandard, it is true. But that reality does not by itself make the order illegal, and at all events\\nGreen never shows how the court’s reasoning varied from the proper standard.\\n\\n Attorney’s fees. The defendants cross-appeal on the ground that the court should have\\nimposed attorney’s fees on Green. In this setting, a court may award a prevailing defendant\\nreasonable fees, provided the lawsuit was frivolous. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); Hughes v. Rowe, 449\\nU.S. 5, 14 (1980) (per curiam). Abuse-of-discretion review once again applies. Ne. Ohio Coal.\\nfor the Homeless v. Husted, 831 F.3d 686, 702 (6th Cir. 2016). None occurred. The court\\nreasonably denied the defendants’ motion on the ground that the discovery and motions practice\\nhad been “very contentious, on both sides” and on the ground that “this is not an egregious case.”\\nR. 229 at 1, 3.\\n\\n The defendants counter that (1) Green knew she was dazed at the crash scene and thus\\nknew from the beginning that she was not similarly situated to Patterson, and (2) she should have\\nknown the defendants did not conceal any evidence and that accident reports are inadmissible in\\nMichigan courts. That Green did not draw the same legal conclusions from these facts as the\\ndefendants, however, does not mean the denial of fees is an abuse of discretion. Yes, a different\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\ntrial court might have reached a different conclusion. But that reality squares with another\\nreality—that our deferential standard of review permits two opposing decisions both to fall\\nwithin it.\\n\\n We affirm.\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4401045/\", \"author_raw\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge\"}, {\"author\": \"MURPHY, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"MURPHY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I join the Court’s opinion in full and write only to\\nexpress some reservations with the specific type of access-to-court claim that Dawn Green\\nasserts here. This claim’s contours have been described as “‘nebulous.’” Foster v. City of Lake\\nJackson, 28 F.3d 425, 430 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). That strikes me as a fitting\\ndescription. Because the claim’s scope has not been thoroughly briefed in this case, I add just a\\nfew thoughts to highlight tensions I see between this claim and the general constitutional corpus\\njuris.\\n\\n To be clear at the outset: “It is beyond dispute that the right of access to the courts is a\\nfundamental right protected by the Constitution.” Graham v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,\\n804 F.2d 953, 959 (6th Cir. 1986). Under this right, a state generally may not discriminate\\nagainst out-of-staters in their ability to access its courts. See McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221,\\n231 (2013); Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 551–52 (Washington, Circuit Justice, C.C.E.D.\\nPa. 1823). Nor may the state physically bar certain individuals from filing suit. See Ex parte\\nHull, 312 U.S. 546, 548–49 (1941). And a state, of course, may not disrupt an individual’s\\nability to uncover a legal claim for racially discriminatory reasons. See Bell v. City of\\nMilwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205, 1259–65 (7th Cir. 1984), overruled on other grounds by Russ v.\\nWatts, 414 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2005).\\n\\n But Green’s access-to-court claim—as distinct from her equal-protection claim alleging\\nrace and sex discrimination—proposes a far more expansive (and elusive) right. Injured in a car\\naccident, Green asserts that the other driver ran a red light. Yet she was able to file a tort suit\\nagainst him and use the state court’s discovery tools to develop evidence in support. She thus\\ncannot allege that the defendants in this case barred her from uncovering or prosecuting her\\nclaim. She instead alleges that they wrongly decided that she was at fault after a slipshod\\ninvestigation, which allegedly pressured her to settle the tort suit for an inadequate amount.\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nBy “substantially prejudicing” her suit, Green’s argument goes, the police denied her access to\\nthe state courts.\\n\\n This type of access-to-court claim is of recent vintage, seemingly dating back to Ryland\\nv. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967 (5th Cir. 1983). The Supreme Court has considered it only once.\\nChristopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 414 n.9 (2002). And, “[a]s Judge Michael W. McConnell\\nstated shortly after [that] decision, ‘[t]he Supreme Court was careful not to endorse the [claim’s]\\nvalidity.’” Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Jennings v. City of\\nStillwater, 383 F.3d 1199, 1209 (10th Cir. 2004)). Two circuits have declined to expressly\\nendorse it. See Sousa, 702 F.3d at 128; Jennings, 383 F.3d at 1207–09. Our Court, too, has\\ndescribed it as “much less established.” See Flagg v. City of Detroit, 715 F.3d 165, 173 (6th Cir.\\n2013). In short, the claim remains a work in progress. Courts opting to recognize the claim, it\\nseems to me, should apply it in a manner that adheres to (at least) three established constitutional\\nprinciples.\\n\\n Principle One: Consider how the Supreme Court treats torts by public actors. Whenever\\nstate actors negligently injure persons or damage their property, the state does not thereby\\n“deprive” them of their “liberty” or “property” under the Due Process Clause. Daniels v.\\nWilliams, 474 U.S. 327, 331–33 (1986). Even when a public actor intentionally pilfers property,\\nthe state has not violated due process if it permits the owner to seek redress in court. Hudson v.\\nPalmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); see Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 537–44 (1981). “The\\ncommonsense teaching of [these cases] is that some questions of property, contract, and tort law\\nare best resolved by state legal systems without resort to the federal courts, even when a state\\nactor is the alleged wrongdoer.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 284 (1994) (Kennedy, J.,\\nconcurring in judgment).\\n\\n Why should a state actor’s interference with a claim for damages to a car receive greater\\nconstitutional scrutiny than the actor’s outright theft of the car? After all, “‘a cause of action is a\\nspecies of property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.’” Tulsa\\nProf’l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478, 485 (1988) (citation omitted). I tend to\\nthink that the Justices’ tort teachings apply to legal claims (a kind of intangible property) as\\nmuch as they do to tangible property. These teachings should inform what we mean when we\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nsay that an access-to-court claim requires “obstructive actions by state actors.” Flagg, 715 F.3d\\nat 174. That phrase covers, as the Court today holds, only deliberate misconduct (not negligent\\ninvestigations). See Daniels, 474 U.S. at 331–33. Even with respect to deliberate misconduct,\\nthese teachings should inform what we mean when we say that an access-to-court claim requires\\nproof that a litigation-related injury “cannot be remedied by the state court.” Flagg, 715 F.3d at\\n174. That phrase “should require that the plaintiff allege and prove that the state’s judicial\\nprocess does not provide fair procedures to remedy the wrong alleged.” Swekel v. City of River\\nRouge, 119 F.3d 1259, 1265 (6th Cir. 1997) (Merritt, J., concurring); see Hudson, 468 U.S. at\\n533. Here, however, Green has not identified any defect in the state courts that barred her from\\nuncovering the evidence on which she relies; in fact, she generated much of that evidence in\\nthose courts. But the federal access-to-court claim is supposed to vindicate the underlying state\\nsuit, not the other way around.\\n\\n Principle Two: Consider what the Supreme Court has said about the government’s duty\\nto provide citizens with information in its possession. “‘The Constitution itself is [not] a\\nFreedom of Information Act.’” Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 14–15 (1978) (plurality\\nopinion) (citation omitted). Thus, “there is no constitutional right to obtain all the information\\nprovided by FOIA laws.” McBurney, 569 U.S. at 232. This rule, moreover, does not end at the\\ncourthouse door. “It is well settled that parties to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are not\\nentitled to discovery as a matter of constitutional right.” NLRB v. Valley Mold Co., 530 F.2d\\n693, 695 (6th Cir. 1976). Even in criminal cases, the Supreme Court has explained that “[t]here\\nis no general constitutional right to discovery” when clarifying the reach of Brady v. Maryland,\\n373 U.S. 83 (1963). See Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977).\\n\\n If the Constitution generally does not require the government to disclose information to\\ncitizens who request it for speech purposes, Los Angeles Police Dep’t v. United Reporting Publ’g\\nCorp., 528 U.S. 32, 40 (1999), I do not see why the Constitution (as compared to discovery\\nrules) should generally require the government to disclose information to citizens who request it\\nfor litigation purposes. Indeed, the Supreme Court has (sometimes) placed the right to access the\\ncourts in the First Amendment’s Petition Clause, Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379,\\n386 (2011), and has said that the Free Speech and Petition Clauses often should be read the same\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nway, see id. at 388–89. These access-to-information cases should inform what we mean when\\nsay that a public actor’s concealment of information caused “‘substantial prejudice’” to a claim.\\nFlagg, 715 F.3d at 174 (citation omitted). It should not suffice to show that the government\\nfailed to turn over information that would have been helpful to a claim; otherwise, courts risk\\ncreating a constitutionally compelled “litigation hold” for all public information in conflict with\\nthe Supreme Court’s cases. McBurney, 569 U.S. at 232. Instead, an alleged concealment must\\nhave effectively (even if not physically) “den[ied] the plaintiffs the opportunity to file a lawsuit.”\\nThompson v. Boggs, 33 F.3d 847, 852 (7th Cir. 1994). Here, however, Green “knew the identity\\nof the defendant and had all of the requisite facts to file” her tort claim. Swekel, 119 F.3d at\\n1263.\\n\\n Principle Three: Consider that this specific access-to-court claim emerged from cases in\\nthe prison setting like Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). See Crowder v. Sinyard, 884 F.2d\\n804, 811 (5th Cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128\\n(1990). Yet the Supreme Court has cautioned that the constitutional principles applicable to\\nprisoners do not neatly map over to the general populace. “[W]hen the State takes a person into\\nits custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding\\nduty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being.” DeShaney v.\\nWinnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199–200 (1989). That logic does not extend\\nto those free of a state’s constraints. Id. at 199–201. That the government may have a duty to\\nprovide prisoners with “adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care,” see Youngberg v.\\nRomeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982), does not mean that it must also furnish the entire population\\nwith their “most basic economic needs,” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485 (1970).\\n\\n If this distinction applies to constitutional questions concerning the necessities of life, I\\nwould think it covers access-to-court claims too. “Unlike prisoners, ordinary individuals do not\\nfind any physical barriers between them and the courts.” Crowder, 884 F.2d at 811. Thus,\\ncourts should not presume that what the Supreme Court has found to be required for “‘adequate,\\neffective, and meaningful’” court access in the prison context automatically applies outside a\\nprison’s walls. Cf. Swekel, 119 F.3d at 1262 (quoting Bounds, 430 U.S. at 822). Even in that\\ncontext, the Court has since Bounds “disclaim[ed]” any “suggest[ion] that the State must enable\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nthe prisoner to discover grievances, and to litigate effectively once in court.” Lewis v. Casey,\\n518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). If that is true there, it must be true here. But, as far as I can see,\\nGreen’s claim alleges nothing more than that the police’s investigation undermined her ability to\\nlitigate effectively.\\n\\n At day’s end, I worry that the main thing justifying an elastic access-to-court claim is the\\ninstinct that, no matter its text, the Constitution must be read to afford an all-purpose remedy for\\nwhenever state actors are alleged to behave poorly. It’s a natural instinct to be sure. But it’s not\\none that the Supreme Court’s cases allow us to indulge.\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n ________________________________________\\n\\n CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT\\n ________________________________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4401045/\", \"author_raw\": \"MURPHY, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}, {\"author\": \"KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment. The majority\\ntoday concludes that because Dawn Green has not shown that the defendant officers either\\nactively concealed or destroyed evidence relating to her state-law claim, Green has not\\nsufficiently established a violation of her constitutional right of access to the courts. Although I\\nagree that Green has not established that her right of access to the courts was violated, I concur\\nin the judgment only, because I believe this case is resolved on another, more established, basis.\\n\\n “It is beyond dispute that the right of access to the courts is a fundamental right protected\\nby the Constitution.” Swekel v. City of River Rouge, 119 F.3d 1259, 1261 (6th Cir. 1997)\\n(quoting Graham v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 804 F.3d 953, 959 (6th Cir. 1986)). Indeed,\\nthe right originates “in several provisions of the Constitution including: the Due Process Clause\\nof the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and the\\nPrivileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.” Id. at 1262 (internal citations omitted). As the\\nSupreme Court has recognized, access claims generally fall into two categories: forward-looking\\nand backward-looking claims. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). Backward-\\nlooking claims, at issue in Green’s case, consider situations in which a previous litigation “ended\\npoorly, or could not have commenced, or could have produced a remedy subsequently\\nunobtainable.” Id. at 414 (footnotes omitted). Thus, the “ultimate goal” of backward-looking\\naccess claims is “simply the judgment in the access claim itself, in providing relief obtainable in\\nno other suit in the future.” Id.\\n\\n Although some circuits have expressed skepticism regarding the availability of\\nbackward-looking access claims, see Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124, 127–28 (2d Cir. 2012),\\nwe have expressly recognized these claims, see Flagg v. City of Detroit, 715 F.3d 165, 173 (6th\\nCir. 2013); Swekel, 119 F.3d at 1262. Indeed, in Flagg v. City of Detroit, this court established a\\nbinding four-part test to analyze these claims. In order to show a backward-looking access\\nclaim, plaintiffs must show: “(1) a non-frivolous underlying claim; (2) obstructive actions by\\nstate actors; (3) substantial prejudice to the underlying claim that cannot be remedied by the state\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\ncourt; and (4) a request for relief which the plaintiff would have sought on the underlying claim\\nand is now otherwise unattainable.” Flagg, 715 F.3d at 174 (internal quotation marks and\\ncitations omitted) (alteration incorporated).\\n\\n The majority today focuses on the second Flagg factor (“obstructive actions by state\\nactors”), concluding––for the first time in a published opinion in this Circuit––that such actions\\nmust amount to either active concealment or destruction of evidence. The majority’s discussion\\nof the obstruction prong, however, is wholly unnecessary to resolve this case. Rather, I follow\\nthe lead of the panel in Flagg and conclude that because Green cannot satisfy the third Flagg\\nfactor (“substantial prejudice to the underlying claim that cannot be remedied by the state\\ncourt”), Green cannot survive summary judgment.\\n\\n “Demonstrating substantial and irreparable prejudice does not require a plaintiff to prove\\nthat he would have won his underlying claim in the absence of government obstruction.” Id. at\\n178–79. Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted that even “arguable claims are settled, bought,\\nand sold.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353 n.3 (1996). Rather, “[w]here there is a known or\\neasily discoverable defendant with whom to bargain on the underlying claim, even a marginal\\nweakening of the underlying claim might suffice to demonstrate substantial and irreparable\\nprejudice because it might have irreversibly reduced the amount for which the defendant would\\nbe willing to settle.” Flagg, 715 F.3d at 179; cf. Jennings v. City of Stillwater, 383 F.3d 1199,\\n1209 (10th Cir. 2004) (concluding that the plaintiff was not prejudiced, in part because she was\\nultimately able to achieve the remedy she sought––a settlement––and she did not allege “that the\\nsettlement amount was inadequate on account of the government’s actions so as to deny her\\nmeaningful relief”); see also Harbury, 536 U.S. at 414 (mentioning “inadequate settlement”).1\\n\\n In the current case, Green cannot show that Traffic Specialist Keith Birberick’s failure\\nfully to investigate the traffic accident prejudiced her underlying state claim against the other\\n\\n\\n 1My colleagues today also suggest that in order to show prejudice, a plaintiff should be required to\\nestablish that the government’s obstructive actions effectively denied her the ability to file a case. See Concurrence\\nat 12. This ignores both our established precedent in Flagg, 715 F.3d at 178–79, as well as the Supreme Court’s\\nrecognition that in the context of access claims, non-frivolous claims that are “lost, rejected, or impeded” may form\\nthe basis of a viable cause of action, because even “arguable claims are settled, bought, and sold,” Casey, 518 U.S.\\nat 353 nn.3–4.\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\ndriver, William Patterson. Green was able to file her suit against Patterson, conduct discovery,\\nand settle the case. Indeed, Green admits that the very evidence she faults the officers for failing\\nto obtain—witness Douglas Harris’s and Green’s versions of the accident––was included in her\\ncase against Patterson; in her federal-court deposition, Green stated that she and Harris could\\nhave testified to rebut the allegedly inaccurate information contained in the traffic report. See\\nR. 185-6 (Green Dep. at 11) (Page ID #5422) (testifying that she could have testified and told her\\nstory); R. 185-20 (Pl.’s Response to Defs.’ Statement of Facts at 4) (Page ID #5531) (admitting\\nthat Green “intended to call Douglas Harris as an independent witness”). Admittedly, in an\\naffidavit in response to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Green asserted that she\\nchose to settle the state case against Patterson in part because the state-court judge told her that\\nHarris’s credibility had been undermined because he had not been interviewed at the scene of the\\naccident and, therefore, she did not have a credible eyewitness to refute Patterson’s version of\\nevents. R. 201 (Green Affidavit at 5) (Page ID #6720). However, as noted above, Green\\nexplained that she could have testified, thus permitting her to refute Patterson’s claims,\\ncorroborate Harris’s testimony, or explain why Harris was not questioned at the scene. R. 185-6\\n(Green Dep. at 11) (Page ID #5422). Moreover, Harris’s credibility was not the only reason\\nGreen decided to settle her case. See R. 201 (Green Affidavit at 5) (Page ID #6720) (explaining\\nthat the settlement amount was “the highest amount the judge could get the insurer to pay”).\\n\\n In sum, I concur in the judgment only. I rest my decision on Green’s failure to show\\n“substantial prejudice” under Flagg and find it unnecessary to explore the full contours of\\nFlagg’s “obstructive actions” requirement, which can await another case and another day.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4401045/\", \"author_raw\": \"KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"SUTTON"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MURPHY"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SUTTON"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623792/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Dawn GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN; Brian Bassett ; Keith Birberick; Mark LaBrosse, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-28\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0106p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n DAWN GREEN, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, │\n │\n > Nos. 18-1758/1775\n v. │\n │\n │\n CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN; BRIAN BASSETT; │\n KEITH BIRBERICK; MARK LABROSSE, │\n Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\n No. 2:15-cv-13479—Sean F. Cox, District Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: May 28, 2019\n\n Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: D. Rick Martin, GLOTTA & ASSOCIATES, Detroit, Michigan, for\nAppellant/Cross-Appellee. Michael T. Berger, SEWARD HENDERSON PLLC, Royal Oak,\nMichigan, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.\n\n SUTTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which MURPHY, J., joined, and\nMOORE, J., joined in the judgment. MURPHY, J. (pp. 9–13), delivered a separate concurring\nopinion in which SUTTON, J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 14–16), delivered a separate opinion\nconcurring in the judgment.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Two cars collided in a busy intersection in a Detroit suburb.\nThe police decided that one of the drivers, Dawn Green, ran a red light, and said so in the\n\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 2\n\n\naccident report, though they opted not to give her a ticket. Green sued the three officers and their\nemployer, the City of Southfield, alleging that the investigation of the accident violated the U.S.\nConstitution. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We affirm.\n\n I.\n\n One afternoon in October 2012, Green was driving west on Eight Mile Road in\nSouthfield, Michigan, twenty minutes north of Detroit. William Patterson was heading\nnorthbound on Southfield Road, taking his grandson to a medical appointment. The two vehicles\ncollided in the intersection, Patterson’s SUV ramming the driver-side door of Green’s sedan.\nAfter impact, the SUV blocked the intersection and Green’s car came to rest at a traffic median\nseveral hundred feet away.\n\n According to Green, she was briefly knocked unconscious and, after coming to, was\ndazed and in intense pain, struggling to “recall[ ] everything that occurred.” R. 185-6 at 7. Other\ndrivers pulled over to help Green, disoriented and with glass in her face, climb out of her car and\nlay down on the median.\n\n Southfield Officer Rafid Maya arrived at the scene soon after the accident. He spoke\nbriefly with Patterson, who was out of his car and didn’t look injured. Maya then went to Green,\nstill on her back on the median, appearing stiff and unable to move her limbs. Because Green\n“didn’t respond too many times,” saying just “a few words here and there,” Maya refrained from\nasking many questions after getting her identification. R. 185-3 at 6–7.\n\n Traffic Specialist Keith Birberick arrived within a few minutes of Maya. By then,\nparamedics were looking after Green, and Birberick initially blocked traffic at Patterson’s end of\nthe crash scene. When he came over to Green, she was on a gurney in an ambulance. He spoke\nto Green briefly, as Maya told him Green couldn’t remember the accident. Patterson relayed that\nhe had just entered the intersection with a green light when his car “was struck” by Green’s car.\nR. 185-7 at 5–6. Birberick did not speak to Patterson’s fifteen-year-old grandson, because he\nbelieved that, as a passenger, the grandson was not an “independent witness” and that the\naccident was not severe enough to warrant significant investigation. Id. at 6. Birberick\ndetermined that the physical evidence—the degree and location of the vehicles’ respective\n\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 3\n\n\ndamage, the absence of skid marks around Green’s vehicle, and the spot where Green’s vehicle\ncame to rest—corroborated Patterson’s account.\n\n Birberick did not consider the accident serious enough for criminal proceedings or a\ntraffic ticket, so he did not complete a police incident report. He instead filled out the crash\nreport that the State of Michigan requires for highway-safety planning purposes when car\naccidents lead to injuries. Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 257.622, 257.624(1). In the form’s “Hazardous\nAction” box, Birberick wrote “none” for Patterson and “disregarded traffic [signal]” for Green.\nR. 185-2 at 2–3. Michigan law provides that such crash reports “shall not be available for use in\na court action.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.624(1).\n\n Green was hospitalized for several days. When she saw the accident report, she\ncontacted Detective Mark LaBrosse at the Southfield Police Department, insisting it was\nPatterson who ran the light and that she had an eye witness, Douglas Harris, to back her up.\nLaBrosse followed up with Harris and Patterson as well as with Officer Maya and Specialist\nBirberick, but LaBrosse and his supervisor (Sergeant Brian Bassett) decided against amending\nthe report. LaBrosse simply added Harris as a potential witness and ordered the records bureau\nto attach his affidavit to the report.\n\n Green sued Patterson in state court, eventually settling her negligence claim after\ndiscovery, case evaluation, and court-ordered facilitation. She then filed this § 1983 and § 1985\naction against officers Birberick, LaBrosse, Bassett, and the City of Southfield, alleging that the\ninvestigation of the accident violated her equal protection rights under the Fourteenth\nAmendment and her right of access to the courts under the First (and Fourteenth) Amendment.\nThe district court concluded that the officers deserved qualified immunity and granted summary\njudgment to several of the defendants. The court refused each side’s request for sanctions\nagainst the other. Green appeals, and the defendants cross-appeal.\n\n II.\n\n Qualified immunity protects police officers from liability for actions that do not violate\nclearly established rights apparent to a reasonable officer standing in their shoes. Harlow v.\nFitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). At issue on summary judgment is whether a material-fact\n\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 4\n\n\ndispute stands in the way of the officers’ qualified-immunity defense or whether they are entitled\nto judgment as a matter of law. Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep’t, 785 F.3d 1128, 1131\n(6th Cir. 2015); see Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 768 (2014). As the opponent of\nsummary judgment, Green gets the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the record.\nNorthrup, 785 F.3d at 1131.\n\n Equal protection. Green claims that the police officers discriminated against her based\non race and sex. More specifically, she alleges that Specialist Birberick did not ask for her\naccount of the crash because she is a black woman but asked for Patterson’s account of the\naccident because he is a white man. Detective LaBrosse and Sergeant Bassett’s follow-up\ninvestigation, she adds, revealed a similar bias.\n\n The legal premise of her claim is correct. The Equal Protection Clause forbids the State\nfrom denying to “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const.\namend. XIV, § 1. So too do § 1983 and § 1985, which prohibit state employees from violating a\nperson’s constitutional rights in the first instance, and conspiring to deprive someone of equal\nprotection in the second. The upshot for purposes of this case is that a party alleging race or sex\ndiscrimination must show that the challenged law-enforcement practice “had a discriminatory\neffect and was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Cornwell v. Bradshaw, 559 F.3d 398,\n411 (6th Cir. 2009). And to prove a discriminatory effect, the plaintiff must show that similarly\nsituated individuals were not subject to the challenged police actions. See Abdul-Khaliq v. City\nof Newark, 275 F. App’x 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2008).\n\n The factual premise of her claim, however, is incorrect. Green and Patterson were not\nsimilarly situated, and those differences justified the way the officers responded to the accident.\nBirberick testified that he did not ask Green what happened because Officer Maya told him she\ncouldn’t remember. All of the evidence, including Green’s own testimony, confirms Maya’s\nsummation: She was “dazed,” “confused,” “out of it,” “disoriented,” and struggling to respond\nto questions. R. 185-3 at 6; R. 185-6 at 7; R. 185-19 at 2. On top of that, she lay on the ground,\nvisibly injured, and in intense pain. Patterson by contrast was on his feet, uninjured, and ready to\ndescribe the collision. Birberick had ample reason to ask Patterson what happened but not to ask\nGreen the same.\n\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 5\n\n\n Green protests that we are required to accept as true her assertion that she would have\ngiven a statement if asked. But that assertion appears in an affidavit that (apparently) never\nmade it into the summary judgment record before the district court. The relevant point at any\nrate isn’t whether Birberick could have coaxed Green’s story out of her had he tried; it’s whether\nhe had good reason to leave her alone. No material-fact dispute clouds that issue.\n\n Pushing the point one step further, Green invokes the testimony of Douglas Harris, who\nwas at the scene and who allegedly testified that Green could communicate and that no police\nofficer came to talk to her. But a perusal of Harris’s testimony does not turn up any such\nstatement. Harris in fact said that he did “[n]ot really talk[]” to Green because “she was in a\ndaze,” and that he left the scene without attempting to speak to anyone. R. 196-2 at 8. In the\nabsence of any differential treatment of similarly situated individuals, Green’s equal protection\ntheories of relief fail as a matter of law.\n\n Access to courts. Green also claims that Specialist Birberick’s failure to solicit\nstatements from witnesses at the accident scene crippled her lawsuit against Patterson, forcing\nher to settle for a lower amount—$95,000—than she deserved. Here, too, the legal predicate of\nher claim is correct but the factual predicate is not.\n\n The Constitution protects an individual’s access to the judicial system—the right to bring\na non-frivolous claim in a court of law. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n.12\n(2002). That right extends to protection from government conspiracies to destroy evidence if\nthose actions prevent a plaintiff from having an “adequate remedy on the underlying claim.”\nFlagg v. City of Detroit, 715 F.3d 165, 173 (6th Cir. 2013); see Swekel v. City of River Rouge,\n119 F.3d 1259, 1262 (6th Cir. 1997). At the same time, a difference exists between an “active\nconcealment” or destruction of evidence on the one hand and a failure to “pursue all possible\nleads” on the other. Kelso v. City of Toledo, 77 F. App’x 826, 832–33 (6th Cir. 2003); see Flores\nv. Satz, 137 F.3d 1275, 1278 & n.7 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Mere “laxity in investigation”\nis not a constitutional violation. Kelso, 77 F. App’x at 833.\n\n This case falls (at worst) on the “mere laxity” side of the line. As in Kelso, “[t]he police\nmight have discovered greater evidence [to support the plaintiff’s state claim] had they\n\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 6\n\n\ninvestigated further.” Id. at 832–33. But no one claims that Birberick took witness statements\nand then destroyed them, or that he deleted case notes or log sheets to deprive Green of favorable\nevidence. See Flagg, 715 F.3d at 169–71, 178; Swekel, 119 F.3d at 1260, 1264.\n\n Failure to solicit additional witness statements, when the physical evidence supports the\nonly account offered at the scene, is a sizeable step removed from that problem. Still further\nremoved is the failure to canvas for the identity of additional witnesses. No witnesses\napproached Birberick or Maya. It appears that no witnesses remained at the scene by the time\nBirberick came over to Green, as the friendly drivers who helped Green out of her car left when\nthe paramedics put her in the ambulance, and Birberick came over only afterwards. On this\nrecord, no cognizable access-to-the-courts claim exists.\n\n Municipal liability. Green adds that the police department maintains an unconstitutional\npolicy of not investigating citizen complaints if they think a lawsuit is in the offing. But because\nher related claims against the officers fail on the merits, her municipal liability claim premised\non those claims necessarily fails as well. City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986)\n(per curiam); D’Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378, 391 (6th Cir. 2014).\n\n Motion to amend the complaint. Green separately challenges the court’s denial of her\nmotion to file what would have been her seventh complaint. The Civil Rules grant plaintiffs the\nchance to file one no-questions-asked amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). After that,\nthey need permission, which the court should “freely” grant in the ordinary course, id. at\n15(a)(2), but which it may deny for a host of reasons—undue delay being one of them, see\nFoman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Abuse of discretion is the watch phrase on appeal.\nId.\n\n After filing her original complaint and her first amended complaint, Green filed two more\nwithout permission. After that, however, the court gave her a strict deadline for any more\namendments. She timely moved for another, but then filed a different version before the court\ngranted her motion. Nine months later (over a year after the lawsuit began), Green moved to file\nyet another amended complaint, her seventh in all, this time seeking to add five defendants, all of\nwhom she knew about from the outset of the case. Because the Federal Rules command just one\n\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 7\n\n\nfree pass, not seven, and because she did not have a good explanation for the last amendment, the\ndistrict court did not abuse its discretion in denying Green’s motion.\n\n Discovery sanctions. Green appeals the court’s denial of her motion for discovery\nsanctions under Civil Rules 26 and 37, and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, as well as under the court’s\ninherent authority, Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43–44 (1991). We review for abuse\nof discretion, id. at 55; see Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990), and find\nnone. The court reasonably explained that it would not impose sanctions because the defendants\neventually produced the materials Green wanted, because none of the late-produced materials\naffected the case’s outcome, and because Green’s counsel contributed his share of unnecessary\ndelay and expense.\n\n Green argues that the court should have analyzed each discovery allegation separately.\nBut the court’s explanation for denying sanctions applies to each one. On top of that, Green\nsuggests that the court failed to consider the correct legal standard. The court did not cite the\nstandard, it is true. But that reality does not by itself make the order illegal, and at all events\nGreen never shows how the court’s reasoning varied from the proper standard.\n\n Attorney’s fees. The defendants cross-appeal on the ground that the court should have\nimposed attorney’s fees on Green. In this setting, a court may award a prevailing defendant\nreasonable fees, provided the lawsuit was frivolous. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); Hughes v. Rowe, 449\nU.S. 5, 14 (1980) (per curiam). Abuse-of-discretion review once again applies. Ne. Ohio Coal.\nfor the Homeless v. Husted, 831 F.3d 686, 702 (6th Cir. 2016). None occurred. The court\nreasonably denied the defendants’ motion on the ground that the discovery and motions practice\nhad been “very contentious, on both sides” and on the ground that “this is not an egregious case.”\nR. 229 at 1, 3.\n\n The defendants counter that (1) Green knew she was dazed at the crash scene and thus\nknew from the beginning that she was not similarly situated to Patterson, and (2) she should have\nknown the defendants did not conceal any evidence and that accident reports are inadmissible in\nMichigan courts. That Green did not draw the same legal conclusions from these facts as the\ndefendants, however, does not mean the denial of fees is an abuse of discretion. Yes, a different\n\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 8\n\n\ntrial court might have reached a different conclusion. But that reality squares with another\nreality—that our deferential standard of review permits two opposing decisions both to fall\nwithin it.\n\n We affirm.\n\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 9\n\n\n _________________\n\n CONCURRENCE\n _________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Dawn GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN; Brian Bassett ; Keith Birberick; Mark LaBrosse, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-28\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0106p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n DAWN GREEN, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > Nos. 18-1758/1775\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN; BRIAN BASSETT; │\\n KEITH BIRBERICK; MARK LABROSSE, │\\n Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:15-cv-13479—Sean F. Cox, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 28, 2019\\n\\n Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: D. Rick Martin, GLOTTA & ASSOCIATES, Detroit, Michigan, for\\nAppellant/Cross-Appellee. Michael T. Berger, SEWARD HENDERSON PLLC, Royal Oak,\\nMichigan, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.\\n\\n SUTTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which MURPHY, J., joined, and\\nMOORE, J., joined in the judgment. MURPHY, J. (pp. 9–13), delivered a separate concurring\\nopinion in which SUTTON, J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 14–16), delivered a separate opinion\\nconcurring in the judgment.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Two cars collided in a busy intersection in a Detroit suburb.\\nThe police decided that one of the drivers, Dawn Green, ran a red light, and said so in the\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\naccident report, though they opted not to give her a ticket. Green sued the three officers and their\\nemployer, the City of Southfield, alleging that the investigation of the accident violated the U.S.\\nConstitution. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We affirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n One afternoon in October 2012, Green was driving west on Eight Mile Road in\\nSouthfield, Michigan, twenty minutes north of Detroit. William Patterson was heading\\nnorthbound on Southfield Road, taking his grandson to a medical appointment. The two vehicles\\ncollided in the intersection, Patterson’s SUV ramming the driver-side door of Green’s sedan.\\nAfter impact, the SUV blocked the intersection and Green’s car came to rest at a traffic median\\nseveral hundred feet away.\\n\\n According to Green, she was briefly knocked unconscious and, after coming to, was\\ndazed and in intense pain, struggling to “recall[ ] everything that occurred.” R. 185-6 at 7. Other\\ndrivers pulled over to help Green, disoriented and with glass in her face, climb out of her car and\\nlay down on the median.\\n\\n Southfield Officer Rafid Maya arrived at the scene soon after the accident. He spoke\\nbriefly with Patterson, who was out of his car and didn’t look injured. Maya then went to Green,\\nstill on her back on the median, appearing stiff and unable to move her limbs. Because Green\\n“didn’t respond too many times,” saying just “a few words here and there,” Maya refrained from\\nasking many questions after getting her identification. R. 185-3 at 6–7.\\n\\n Traffic Specialist Keith Birberick arrived within a few minutes of Maya. By then,\\nparamedics were looking after Green, and Birberick initially blocked traffic at Patterson’s end of\\nthe crash scene. When he came over to Green, she was on a gurney in an ambulance. He spoke\\nto Green briefly, as Maya told him Green couldn’t remember the accident. Patterson relayed that\\nhe had just entered the intersection with a green light when his car “was struck” by Green’s car.\\nR. 185-7 at 5–6. Birberick did not speak to Patterson’s fifteen-year-old grandson, because he\\nbelieved that, as a passenger, the grandson was not an “independent witness” and that the\\naccident was not severe enough to warrant significant investigation. Id. at 6. Birberick\\ndetermined that the physical evidence—the degree and location of the vehicles’ respective\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\ndamage, the absence of skid marks around Green’s vehicle, and the spot where Green’s vehicle\\ncame to rest—corroborated Patterson’s account.\\n\\n Birberick did not consider the accident serious enough for criminal proceedings or a\\ntraffic ticket, so he did not complete a police incident report. He instead filled out the crash\\nreport that the State of Michigan requires for highway-safety planning purposes when car\\naccidents lead to injuries. Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 257.622, 257.624(1). In the form’s “Hazardous\\nAction” box, Birberick wrote “none” for Patterson and “disregarded traffic [signal]” for Green.\\nR. 185-2 at 2–3. Michigan law provides that such crash reports “shall not be available for use in\\na court action.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.624(1).\\n\\n Green was hospitalized for several days. When she saw the accident report, she\\ncontacted Detective Mark LaBrosse at the Southfield Police Department, insisting it was\\nPatterson who ran the light and that she had an eye witness, Douglas Harris, to back her up.\\nLaBrosse followed up with Harris and Patterson as well as with Officer Maya and Specialist\\nBirberick, but LaBrosse and his supervisor (Sergeant Brian Bassett) decided against amending\\nthe report. LaBrosse simply added Harris as a potential witness and ordered the records bureau\\nto attach his affidavit to the report.\\n\\n Green sued Patterson in state court, eventually settling her negligence claim after\\ndiscovery, case evaluation, and court-ordered facilitation. She then filed this § 1983 and § 1985\\naction against officers Birberick, LaBrosse, Bassett, and the City of Southfield, alleging that the\\ninvestigation of the accident violated her equal protection rights under the Fourteenth\\nAmendment and her right of access to the courts under the First (and Fourteenth) Amendment.\\nThe district court concluded that the officers deserved qualified immunity and granted summary\\njudgment to several of the defendants. The court refused each side’s request for sanctions\\nagainst the other. Green appeals, and the defendants cross-appeal.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Qualified immunity protects police officers from liability for actions that do not violate\\nclearly established rights apparent to a reasonable officer standing in their shoes. Harlow v.\\nFitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). At issue on summary judgment is whether a material-fact\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\ndispute stands in the way of the officers’ qualified-immunity defense or whether they are entitled\\nto judgment as a matter of law. Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep’t, 785 F.3d 1128, 1131\\n(6th Cir. 2015); see Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 768 (2014). As the opponent of\\nsummary judgment, Green gets the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the record.\\nNorthrup, 785 F.3d at 1131.\\n\\n Equal protection. Green claims that the police officers discriminated against her based\\non race and sex. More specifically, she alleges that Specialist Birberick did not ask for her\\naccount of the crash because she is a black woman but asked for Patterson’s account of the\\naccident because he is a white man. Detective LaBrosse and Sergeant Bassett’s follow-up\\ninvestigation, she adds, revealed a similar bias.\\n\\n The legal premise of her claim is correct. The Equal Protection Clause forbids the State\\nfrom denying to “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const.\\namend. XIV, § 1. So too do § 1983 and § 1985, which prohibit state employees from violating a\\nperson’s constitutional rights in the first instance, and conspiring to deprive someone of equal\\nprotection in the second. The upshot for purposes of this case is that a party alleging race or sex\\ndiscrimination must show that the challenged law-enforcement practice “had a discriminatory\\neffect and was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Cornwell v. Bradshaw, 559 F.3d 398,\\n411 (6th Cir. 2009). And to prove a discriminatory effect, the plaintiff must show that similarly\\nsituated individuals were not subject to the challenged police actions. See Abdul-Khaliq v. City\\nof Newark, 275 F. App’x 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2008).\\n\\n The factual premise of her claim, however, is incorrect. Green and Patterson were not\\nsimilarly situated, and those differences justified the way the officers responded to the accident.\\nBirberick testified that he did not ask Green what happened because Officer Maya told him she\\ncouldn’t remember. All of the evidence, including Green’s own testimony, confirms Maya’s\\nsummation: She was “dazed,” “confused,” “out of it,” “disoriented,” and struggling to respond\\nto questions. R. 185-3 at 6; R. 185-6 at 7; R. 185-19 at 2. On top of that, she lay on the ground,\\nvisibly injured, and in intense pain. Patterson by contrast was on his feet, uninjured, and ready to\\ndescribe the collision. Birberick had ample reason to ask Patterson what happened but not to ask\\nGreen the same.\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n Green protests that we are required to accept as true her assertion that she would have\\ngiven a statement if asked. But that assertion appears in an affidavit that (apparently) never\\nmade it into the summary judgment record before the district court. The relevant point at any\\nrate isn’t whether Birberick could have coaxed Green’s story out of her had he tried; it’s whether\\nhe had good reason to leave her alone. No material-fact dispute clouds that issue.\\n\\n Pushing the point one step further, Green invokes the testimony of Douglas Harris, who\\nwas at the scene and who allegedly testified that Green could communicate and that no police\\nofficer came to talk to her. But a perusal of Harris’s testimony does not turn up any such\\nstatement. Harris in fact said that he did “[n]ot really talk[]” to Green because “she was in a\\ndaze,” and that he left the scene without attempting to speak to anyone. R. 196-2 at 8. In the\\nabsence of any differential treatment of similarly situated individuals, Green’s equal protection\\ntheories of relief fail as a matter of law.\\n\\n Access to courts. Green also claims that Specialist Birberick’s failure to solicit\\nstatements from witnesses at the accident scene crippled her lawsuit against Patterson, forcing\\nher to settle for a lower amount—$95,000—than she deserved. Here, too, the legal predicate of\\nher claim is correct but the factual predicate is not.\\n\\n The Constitution protects an individual’s access to the judicial system—the right to bring\\na non-frivolous claim in a court of law. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n.12\\n(2002). That right extends to protection from government conspiracies to destroy evidence if\\nthose actions prevent a plaintiff from having an “adequate remedy on the underlying claim.”\\nFlagg v. City of Detroit, 715 F.3d 165, 173 (6th Cir. 2013); see Swekel v. City of River Rouge,\\n119 F.3d 1259, 1262 (6th Cir. 1997). At the same time, a difference exists between an “active\\nconcealment” or destruction of evidence on the one hand and a failure to “pursue all possible\\nleads” on the other. Kelso v. City of Toledo, 77 F. App’x 826, 832–33 (6th Cir. 2003); see Flores\\nv. Satz, 137 F.3d 1275, 1278 & n.7 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Mere “laxity in investigation”\\nis not a constitutional violation. Kelso, 77 F. App’x at 833.\\n\\n This case falls (at worst) on the “mere laxity” side of the line. As in Kelso, “[t]he police\\nmight have discovered greater evidence [to support the plaintiff’s state claim] had they\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\ninvestigated further.” Id. at 832–33. But no one claims that Birberick took witness statements\\nand then destroyed them, or that he deleted case notes or log sheets to deprive Green of favorable\\nevidence. See Flagg, 715 F.3d at 169–71, 178; Swekel, 119 F.3d at 1260, 1264.\\n\\n Failure to solicit additional witness statements, when the physical evidence supports the\\nonly account offered at the scene, is a sizeable step removed from that problem. Still further\\nremoved is the failure to canvas for the identity of additional witnesses. No witnesses\\napproached Birberick or Maya. It appears that no witnesses remained at the scene by the time\\nBirberick came over to Green, as the friendly drivers who helped Green out of her car left when\\nthe paramedics put her in the ambulance, and Birberick came over only afterwards. On this\\nrecord, no cognizable access-to-the-courts claim exists.\\n\\n Municipal liability. Green adds that the police department maintains an unconstitutional\\npolicy of not investigating citizen complaints if they think a lawsuit is in the offing. But because\\nher related claims against the officers fail on the merits, her municipal liability claim premised\\non those claims necessarily fails as well. City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986)\\n(per curiam); D’Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378, 391 (6th Cir. 2014).\\n\\n Motion to amend the complaint. Green separately challenges the court’s denial of her\\nmotion to file what would have been her seventh complaint. The Civil Rules grant plaintiffs the\\nchance to file one no-questions-asked amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). After that,\\nthey need permission, which the court should “freely” grant in the ordinary course, id. at\\n15(a)(2), but which it may deny for a host of reasons—undue delay being one of them, see\\nFoman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Abuse of discretion is the watch phrase on appeal.\\nId.\\n\\n After filing her original complaint and her first amended complaint, Green filed two more\\nwithout permission. After that, however, the court gave her a strict deadline for any more\\namendments. She timely moved for another, but then filed a different version before the court\\ngranted her motion. Nine months later (over a year after the lawsuit began), Green moved to file\\nyet another amended complaint, her seventh in all, this time seeking to add five defendants, all of\\nwhom she knew about from the outset of the case. Because the Federal Rules command just one\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nfree pass, not seven, and because she did not have a good explanation for the last amendment, the\\ndistrict court did not abuse its discretion in denying Green’s motion.\\n\\n Discovery sanctions. Green appeals the court’s denial of her motion for discovery\\nsanctions under Civil Rules 26 and 37, and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, as well as under the court’s\\ninherent authority, Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43–44 (1991). We review for abuse\\nof discretion, id. at 55; see Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990), and find\\nnone. The court reasonably explained that it would not impose sanctions because the defendants\\neventually produced the materials Green wanted, because none of the late-produced materials\\naffected the case’s outcome, and because Green’s counsel contributed his share of unnecessary\\ndelay and expense.\\n\\n Green argues that the court should have analyzed each discovery allegation separately.\\nBut the court’s explanation for denying sanctions applies to each one. On top of that, Green\\nsuggests that the court failed to consider the correct legal standard. The court did not cite the\\nstandard, it is true. But that reality does not by itself make the order illegal, and at all events\\nGreen never shows how the court’s reasoning varied from the proper standard.\\n\\n Attorney’s fees. The defendants cross-appeal on the ground that the court should have\\nimposed attorney’s fees on Green. In this setting, a court may award a prevailing defendant\\nreasonable fees, provided the lawsuit was frivolous. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); Hughes v. Rowe, 449\\nU.S. 5, 14 (1980) (per curiam). Abuse-of-discretion review once again applies. Ne. Ohio Coal.\\nfor the Homeless v. Husted, 831 F.3d 686, 702 (6th Cir. 2016). None occurred. The court\\nreasonably denied the defendants’ motion on the ground that the discovery and motions practice\\nhad been “very contentious, on both sides” and on the ground that “this is not an egregious case.”\\nR. 229 at 1, 3.\\n\\n The defendants counter that (1) Green knew she was dazed at the crash scene and thus\\nknew from the beginning that she was not similarly situated to Patterson, and (2) she should have\\nknown the defendants did not conceal any evidence and that accident reports are inadmissible in\\nMichigan courts. That Green did not draw the same legal conclusions from these facts as the\\ndefendants, however, does not mean the denial of fees is an abuse of discretion. Yes, a different\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\ntrial court might have reached a different conclusion. But that reality squares with another\\nreality—that our deferential standard of review permits two opposing decisions both to fall\\nwithin it.\\n\\n We affirm.\\n\\n Nos. 18-1758/1775 Green v. City of Southfield et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE\\n _________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2094,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4624321,"string":"4,624,321"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas G. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Thomas Thompson"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-29"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-4264"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Moore, Clay, Donald\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0107p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 17-4264\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n THOMAS G. THOMPSON, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.\\n No. 2:15-cr-00081-1—Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: December 6, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 29, 2019\\n\\n Before: MOORE, CLAY, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Russell S. Bensing, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Alexis J. Zouhary, UNITED\\nSTATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Russell S.\\nBensing, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Alexis J. Zouhary, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\\nOFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Thomas Thompson\\nappeals the district court’s denial of his motion to terminate his civil-contempt sanctions in\\naccordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1826. Because we determine that Thompson’s sanctions do not fall\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 2\\n\\n\\nunder the eighteen-month incarceration limitation of § 1826, we AFFIRM the district court’s\\norder.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n This case originated as part of consolidated civil actions filed in 2005 and 2006 against\\nThompson and numerous other business-entity defendants. See Civ. R. 3 (Compl.), 2:06-CV-\\n00292 (S.D. Ohio)1; Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P’ship, 731 F.3d 608, 616–17 (6th Cir. 2013)\\n(discussing the factual and procedural background of the civil case). The civil plaintiffs were a\\ngroup of employees and one business hired by Thompson to assist him in locating a long-sunken\\nship and recovering the treasures it contained. Williamson, 731 F.3d at 616. Following the\\ndiscovery of the ship and the removal of various items, including gold, the plaintiffs filed suit to\\nrecover some of the profits they contended they were owed. Id. During the course of that\\nlitigation, the district court entered a preliminary injunction instructing Thompson that “he shall\\nnot sell, encumber, transfer or diminish in value” any re-strike or commemorative gold coins he\\nhad in his possession. Civ. R. 738 at 1–2 (Page ID #13314–15). If the coins were not in\\nThompson’s possession, Thompson was instructed to “submit a declaration under oath\\ndescribing in detail the parties to whom the coins were transferred, any consideration received or\\noutstanding, the date of such transfer, and the names of the recipients.” Id. at 2 (Page ID\\n#13315). The district court subsequently entered a temporary restraining order when Thompson\\ntransferred the coins to a third-party trust. See Civ. R. 770 at 1 (Page ID #13704). The order\\nprohibited the trust “from disposing of, encumbering, transferring or diminishing in value in any\\nway the 500 gold restrike coins.” Id.\\n\\n Prior to the temporary restraining order but after Thompson failed to provide the\\ninformation detailed in the preliminary injunction, the district court issued an order requiring\\nThompson to attend a hearing in August 2012 to “show cause why the Court should not hold him\\nin contempt.” Civ. R. 761 at 1 (Page ID #13490). The district court explained that if Thompson\\ndid not attend the hearing, a warrant would be issued for his arrest. Id. When Thompson failed\\n\\n\\n 1Because this appeal references two district-court cases, this opinion will refer to the record of the 2006\\ncivil case as “Civ. R.” and the record of Thompson’s criminal case as “Crim. R.”\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 3\\n\\n\\nto appear, and instead absconded to Florida, an arrest warrant was issued. See Crim. R. 3 at 2\\n(Crim. Compl.) (Page ID #5). A criminal complaint was filed against Thompson charging him\\nwith failing to comply with the district court’s orders in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).2 Id. at\\nPage ID #3, 8. Following his arrest in January 2015, an information was filed charging\\nThompson with violating § 401(3). Crim. R. 13.\\n\\n In March 2015, Thompson entered into a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, Crim. R. 14,\\nwhich the district court later accepted, see Crim. R. 20 at 28–29 (Page ID #91–92). Pursuant to\\nhis plea agreement, Thompson agreed to:\\n\\n assist the Parties in Case No. 06-CV-0292, and any other party identified by the\\n Court as having an interest, in identifying and recovering assets. Defendant\\n agrees to testify under oath at a proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s examination\\n to identify and recover assets. This examination shall include, but is not limited\\n to, questions regarding the gold strike commemorative coins which were the\\n subject of previous orders in Case No. 06-CV-0292. After Defendant answers\\n questions in the debtor’s examination, a reasonable time will be permitted for a\\n process amounting to civil discovery to verify answers and trace assets. After the\\n debtor’s examination and a reasona[b]le period of time for discovery, if the\\n government is satisfied that all questions have fully [sic] answered, it shall\\n recommend to the Court that the civil contempt be deemed “cured.” This term\\n shall not bar the Court from adducing and ordering a sentence including\\n incarceration in this case for criminal contempt. The government acknowledges\\n that it is the Parties’ intention that the identification of property and assets shall\\n proceed as a condition of Defendant’s cooperation under the terms of this\\n Agreement and that the determination of whether Defendant has in fact\\n cooperated in this regard shall be made by this Court and only by this Court,\\n consistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Further, the\\n government acknowledges that it is the Parties’ intention that any sanctions or\\n consequences arising from Defendants’ failure to cooperate in the identification\\n and recovery of assets in Case No. 06-CV-0292 be determined and imposed by\\n this Court as part of the instant proceeding, and only by this Court as part of the\\n instant proceeding . . . .\\n\\nCrim. R. 14 at 2–3 (Page ID #49–50). Prior to sentencing, certain parties from the civil action,\\nas well as a state-appointed receiver from a connected state action, filed a motion to enforce the\\n\\n\\n 218 U.S.C. § 401(3) states: “A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or\\nimprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as . . . [d]isobedience or\\nresistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 4\\n\\n\\nplea agreement against Thompson. See Crim. R. 28 at 1 (Page ID #128). On September 22,\\n2015, the district court ordered Thompson to “submit to a debtor’s examination, pursuant to the\\nterms of his plea agreement, during the week of October 19, 2015.” Crim. R. 33 at 1–2 (Page ID\\n#218–19).\\n\\n Although Thompson initially sat for the examination, the civil parties and receiver filed a\\nmotion to hold Thompson in civil contempt for violating the plea agreement. See Crim. R. 46 at\\n1–4 (Page ID #300–03). The movants contended that not only did Thompson refuse to provide\\nsufficient answers to their questions regarding the location of the coins, but when the\\ngovernment attempted to schedule another examination, “Thompson’s counsel announced that\\nThompson [wa]s invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege and w[ould] not answer any further\\nquestions.” Id. at 4 (Page ID #303). In response to this motion, on November 16, 2015, the\\ndistrict court ordered Thompson “to submit to a second debtor’s examination by the Government\\nand the Williamson plaintiffs” and “to comply with the terms of his plea agreement, in particular,\\nSection 4(a).” Crim. R. 50 at 1 (Page ID #494). The district court then quoted from paragraph\\n4(a) of the plea agreement, explaining that Thompson had agreed to:\\n\\n assist the Parties in Case No. 06-CV-0292, and any other party identified by the\\n Court as having an interest, in identifying and recovering assets. Defendant\\n agrees to testify under oath at a proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s examination,\\n to identify and recover assets. This examination shall include, but is not limited\\n to, questions regarding the gold strike commemorative coins which were the\\n subject of previous orders in Case No. 06-CV-0292.\\n\\nId. at 2 (Page ID #495). The district court noted that “[i]f Thompson does not comply with the\\nCourt’s Order to sit for the debtor’s examination, he will be ordered to show cause why he\\nshould not be held in civil or criminal contempt for failure to comply with a Court order.” Id.\\nFollowing another delay, Crim. R. 54 (12/4/15 Gov’t Notice) (Page ID #500), Thompson\\nappeared at an examination on December 14, 2015, but refused to answer any questions, Crim.\\nR. 56 at 1–2 (Show Cause Hr’g Order) (Page ID #505–06). The district court then ordered\\nThompson to appear in court the next day to “show cause as to why this Court should not hold\\nhim in civil or criminal contempt for failure to comply with the November 16, 2015 Order.”\\nCrim. R. 56 at 2 (Page ID #506). The order quoted the same section of paragraph 4(a) of the\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 5\\n\\n\\nplea agreement as the November 16, 2015 order. The show-cause hearing was scheduled for the\\nsame day as his previously scheduled sentencing. Id.\\n\\n On December 15, 2015, the district court conducted Thompson’s criminal-contempt\\nsentencing and civil-contempt show-cause hearing. After stating the sentencing factors under 18\\nU.S.C. § 3553(a), the court sentenced Thompson to two years of imprisonment for criminal\\ncontempt. Crim. R. 67 at 32–37 (Sentencing Tr.) (Page ID #666–71). However, the district\\ncourt held Thompson’s criminal sentence in abeyance until Thompson completed any civil-\\ncontempt sentence imposed during the show-cause hearing, which immediately followed the\\ncriminal-contempt sentencing. Id. at 39 (Page ID #673). After the conclusion of the show-cause\\nhearing, the district court held Thompson in civil contempt for “not cooperating during the”\\nDecember 14, 2015 debtor’s exam, in violation of the district court’s November 16, 2015 order.\\nId. at 73 (Page ID #707). The district court ordered Thompson to “be incarcerated indefinitely\\nuntil you comply with this Court’s order to provide the type of information that you had\\npreviously agreed to provide.” Id. at 73–74 (Page ID #707–08). He was also ordered to pay the\\ncourt a fine of $1,000 per day. Id. at 75 (Page ID #709). In an accompanying written order, the\\ndistrict court cited its “inherent power to enforce compliance with [its] lawful orders” as the\\nbasis for its decision to order the civil-contempt sanctions. Crim. R. 63 at 3 (12/16/15 Contempt\\nOrder) (Page ID #623) (quoting Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966)). The\\ndistrict court concluded that it would assess Thompson’s compliance every sixty days. Id. at 5\\n(Page ID #625). This court dismissed Thompson’s appeal of his criminal-contempt conviction\\nand sentence for lack of jurisdiction because the district court had expressly reserved entry of\\njudgment in the criminal case “pending Thompson’s purge of a civil contempt order entered in\\nthe same case.” See United States v. Thompson, No. 15-4424 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016) (order).\\n\\n Upon reaching eighteen months of incarceration for civil contempt, Thompson sought to\\nterminate his civil-contempt sanctions. Crim. R. 111. Thompson contended that his actions fell\\nunder the recalcitrant-witness statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a), which provides:\\n\\n Whenever a witness in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand\\n jury of the United States refuses without just cause shown to comply with an\\n order of the court to testify or provide other information, including any book,\\n paper, document, record, recording or other material, the court, upon such refusal,\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 6\\n\\n\\n or when such refusal is duly brought to its attention, may summarily order his\\n confinement at a suitable place until such time as the witness is willing to give\\n such testimony or provide such information. No period of such confinement shall\\n exceed the life of—\\n (1) the court proceeding, or\\n (2) the term of the grand jury, including extensions,\\n before which such refusal to comply with the court order occurred, but in no event\\n shall such confinement exceed eighteen months.\\n\\n28 U.S.C. § 1826(a). Because his confinement had reached eighteen months, Thompson asserted\\nhe was entitled to release. Crim. R. 111 at 2 (Page ID #999). On November 27, 2017, the\\ndistrict court denied Thompson’s motion, concluding that “[t]he plea agreement requires Mr.\\nThompson not just to provide information, but also to ‘assist the Parties’ in ‘identifying and\\nrecovering assets’ and otherwise to comply with the terms of his plea agreement.” Crim. R. 138\\nat 4 (Page ID #1244). Noting that “the utility of Mr. Thompson’s assets as evidence is almost\\nbeside the point” and that “it is the economic value of the treasure that the Court seeks,” the\\ndistrict court determined that because Thompson was required both to testify and to help recover\\nassets, § 1826 did not apply to him. Id. at 6 (Page ID #1246). Additionally, referencing a\\nprevious status order in April 2017, Crim. R. 108, the district court noted that the plea agreement\\ncontemplated non-testimonial acts, such as “the signing of a limited power of attorney that\\nallows the government to probe the contents of the Belizean trust,” which the parties believed\\ncontained some of the gold coins, Crim. R. 138 at 2 (Page ID #1242).\\n\\n On December 6, 2017, Thompson filed this timely appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.\\n4(a)(1)(B). Following the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, a panel of this\\ncourt expressly found that “[t]he district court’s order is effectively final, and thus appealable,”\\nunder the collateral order doctrine. Order at 3 (6th Cir. Mar. 8, 2018).\\n\\n II. STANDARD OF REVIEW\\n\\n We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation, such as the scope of 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1826. United States v. White, 846 F.3d 170, 174 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2203\\n(2017). As to the district court’s denial of Thompson’s motion to lift his sanctions, we ordinarily\\nreview a district court’s interpretation of its own order for abuse of discretion. Michigan v. City\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 7\\n\\n\\nof Allen Park, 954 F.2d 1201, 1213 (6th Cir. 1992). However, the unique procedural posture of\\nThompson’s case disrupts this standard. When the district court initially considered whether\\nThompson was in contempt, it examined its two prior orders––issued on September 22, 2015 and\\non November 16, 2015––and the language of Thompson’s plea agreement. See Crim. R. 63 at 2–\\n3 (12/16/15 Contempt Order) (Page ID #622–23). However, both the September and November\\norders merely ordered Thompson to fulfill his obligations under the plea agreement and quoted\\nparticular language from paragraph 4(a) of the agreement. See Crim. R. 33 at 1–2 (9/22/15\\nOrder) (Page ID #218–19); Crim. R. 50 at 1–2 (11/16/15 Order) (Page ID #494–95). Similarly,\\nin determining whether § 1826’s eighteen-month incarceration limit applied to Thompson’s\\nsanctions, the district court again examined the language of the plea agreement, noting that the\\ncourt had previously determined that Thompson was in contempt based on his failure to fulfill\\nhis duties under the plea agreement. Crim. R. 63 (12/16/15 Contempt Order).\\n\\n Thus, although the district court was technically examining its December 2015 contempt\\norder when it denied Thompson’s motion to lift his sanctions, because the district court’s order\\nwas predicated on its interpretation of the plea agreement, the district court was more accurately\\nexamining the terms and conditions of that agreement. Consequently, we will examine the\\ndistrict court’s denial of Thompson’s motion for what it actually was: an interpretation of\\nThompson’s plea agreement. Under these circumstances, we review de novo the district court’s\\nconstruction of the plea agreement, while examining for clear error the district court’s factual\\nconclusions “such as whether there was an agreement and the substance of that agreement.”\\nUnited States v. Quesada, 607 F.3d 1128, 1131 (6th Cir. 2010). Finally, in interpreting plea\\nagreements, “this Court uses traditional principles of contract law.” United States v. Lukse, 286\\nF.3d 906, 909 (6th Cir. 2002). “Whether a contract term is ambiguous is a question of law for\\nthe court to determine” under a de novo standard. Nw. Ohio Adm’rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox,\\nInc., 270 F.3d 1018, 1023, 1025 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that “[w]e review the district court’s\\nconclusions of law de novo”), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1606 (2002).\\n\\n III. DISCUSSION\\n\\n We have rarely interpreted the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1826. A review of the case law of\\nthis court, as well as other Circuit courts, identifies two primary decisions addressing this statute:\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 8\\n\\n\\nUnited States v. Mitchell, 556 F.2d 371 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 98 S. Ct. 406 (1977), and\\nArmstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 486 (2007).\\n\\n In Mitchell, two criminal defendants were ordered to submit voice exemplars in\\npreparation for their own trial. 556 F.2d at 381. The voice exemplars were necessary for the\\ngovernment to match the criminal defendants to voice recordings taken during a sting operation.\\nId. After the defendants refused to provide the exemplars, the district court held the defendants\\nin civil contempt and ordered them incarcerated. Id. at 381, 383. The defendants asserted that\\nunder § 1826, their incarceration could not exceed eighteen months. Id. at 384. Noting that\\n§ 1826 was meant to limit the district court’s inherent authority to hold the defendants in civil\\ncontempt, this court ultimately concluded that § 1826 was applicable and, therefore, defendants\\ncould not be incarcerated in excess of eighteen months. Id. This court further explained that the\\ndefendants were, indeed, “witnesses” as understood by the statute and that because the order\\nrequired the defendants to provide “information” in the form of the voice exemplars, § 1826\\nencompassed their conduct. Id.; see also Palmer v. United States, 530 F.2d 787, 789 & n.3 (8th\\nCir. 1976) (concluding that handwriting exemplars constitute “other information” under § 1826).\\n\\n In Armstrong, the Second Circuit considered whether a district court’s order requiring the\\ndefendant to turn over various corporate assets to a court-appointed receiver fell within § 1826.\\n470 F.3d at 93. Noting that the Mitchell court determined that the order requiring the defendants\\nto submit voice exemplars constituted an order to provide other information “presumably\\nbecause the voice exemplars were sought for their informational content and had no other value,”\\nthe Second Circuit ultimately concluded that an order requiring merely the production of assets\\ndid not constitute an order to provide information. Id. at 109–10 (“[T]he order which Armstrong\\nrefused to obey commands the production of gold bullion, valuable coins, and antiquities that are\\nsought not because of any information they might contain, but because they are objects of\\nmonetary value that are the property of the corporation in receivership.”). Finally, the Second\\nCircuit explained that, although the production of a computer hard drive might fall within the\\nstatute, where it “presumably contains records of the Princeton funds,” nonetheless the issue was\\nmoot because Armstrong had been ordered to provide both the hard drive and the tangible assets.\\nId. at 110. Given this legal background, we now examine whether, given the terms of\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 9\\n\\n\\nThompson’s plea agreement, the statutory limitations of § 1826 apply to Thompson’s\\ncontemptuous conduct.\\n\\nA. Order to Sit for A Debtor’s Examination\\n\\n As an initial matter, and for the sake of clarity given this procedurally and factually\\ncomplicated case, we note that even if Thompson’s plea agreement required Thompson to\\nengage in non-testimonial conduct, if Thompson were held in contempt solely for testimonial\\nconduct, such as failing to participate in a debtor’s examination and answer questions truthfully,\\n§ 1826 would plainly apply to him. Parts of Thompson’s plea agreement explained that\\nThomson was required to “testify under oath at a proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s\\nexamination” and that the examination would “include, but [wa]s not limited to, questions\\nregarding the gold strike commemorative coins.” Crim. R. 14 at 2 (Page ID #49) (emphasis\\nadded). Were Thompson to be held in contempt solely for failing to fulfill those particular\\nrequirements, Thompson would clearly be “refus[ing] . . . to comply with an order of the court to\\ntestify or provide other information.” 28 U.S.C. § 1826 (emphasis added). Put differently, the\\nonly way Thompson could cure his contempt in such a scenario would be to engage in the exact\\ntype of conduct encompassed by § 1826. None of the government’s arguments undermine this\\nanalysis.\\n\\n First, even if Thompson’s plea agreement (and the district court’s order requiring him to\\ncomply with its terms) encompasses non-testimonial conduct in addition to “testify[ing]” or\\n“provid[ing] other information,” the possible scope of the agreement does not control if\\nThompson’s only contemptuous conduct were refusing to testify in a debtor’s examination.\\nArmstrong is instructive here. As noted above, the Second Circuit in Armstrong ultimately\\ndetermined that because the defendant was in contempt for failing to follow an order requiring\\nhim both to turn over assets (non-testimonial) and to surrender a computer hard drive containing\\n“other information,” it ultimately did not matter that the hard drive would conceivably fall within\\n§ 1826’s limitations. Armstrong, 470 F.3d at 110. However, the Second Circuit further\\nexplained that, even though the order required Armstrong to engage in those two types of\\nconduct, “[i]f Armstrong were being confined solely because of his refusal to produce the\\ncomputer files, we would need to consider whether the eighteen-month cap of § 1826(a)\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 10\\n\\n\\napplies.” Id. The Second Circuit’s comment was presumably based on the understanding that,\\neven if § 1826 applied to Armstrong’s failure to turn over “other information”––i.e., the\\ncomputer hard drive––because he was also required to engage in non-testimonial conduct which\\ndid not have a corresponding incarceration limit––turning over the monetary assets––the\\neighteen-month limitation did not ultimately impact the length of Armstrong’s incarceration for\\ncivil contempt. Conversely, if Thompson were held in contempt solely for failing to testify––\\nconduct that falls squarely within § 1826––Thompson’s incarceration for civil contempt could\\nlast only eighteen months.\\n\\n In response, the government asserts that Thompson is not a “witness” as traditionally\\nunderstood under § 1826 because Thompson’s testimony was sought only in service of finding\\nitems (the gold coins) which had no independent informational value. Appellee Br. at 32–34.\\nThe government’s argument finds some support in § 1826’s limited legislative history. See\\nOrganized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922–23 (1970) (explaining\\nthat the statute was enacted “to seek the eradication of organized crime in the United States by\\nstrengthening the legal tools in the evidence-gathering process”); S. Rep. 91-617 at 57 (1969)\\n(noting that the statute “represents the best efforts of the committee to codify and spell out the\\npowers of the courts to deal with witnesses who are unlawfully withholding information\\nnecessary to move forward an investigation”). However, given the procedural posture of this\\ncase, we are not prepared to say that Thompson’s testimony would be of no evidentiary value to\\nthe 2006 civil plaintiffs, particularly since those same plaintiffs were pursuing a conversion\\nclaim against Thompson based on the gold coins. See generally Williamson, 731 F.3d at 616;\\nsee also In re Younger, 986 F.2d 1376, 1378 (11th Cir. 1993) (concluding that § 1826 applies to\\nbankruptcy proceedings and implicitly recognizing that the defendant’s “refus[al] to answer\\nquestions in a bankruptcy case concerning the location of certain assets” which he had been\\nordered to surrender fell under the eighteen-month incarceration limitation); In re Martin-\\nTrigona, 732 F.2d 170, 174–76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 105 S. Ct. 191 (1984) (determining\\nimplicitly that an order requiring the defendant to testify regarding the status of his assets in a\\nbankruptcy proceeding fell under § 1826).\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 11\\n\\n\\n Furthermore, as we noted in Mitchell, the limited legislative history of § 1826, while\\ninstructive, is of “minimal value.” Mitchell, 556 F.2d at 384. Given the plain language of the\\nstatute, were Thompson to be held in contempt for failing solely to sit for a debtor’s examination\\nand to testify about the location of his assets, § 1826 would limit his incarceration for civil\\ncontempt to eighteen months. See Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718,\\n1725 (2017) (“[I]t is never our job to rewrite a constitutionally valid statutory text under the\\nbanner of speculation about what Congress might have done had it faced a question that . . . it\\nnever faced.”); Bridewell v. Cincinnati Reds, 155 F.3d 828, 830 (6th Cir. 1998) (“[W]e c[an]not\\nlook to the legislative history to contravene the clear and unambiguous language of the statute.”).\\n\\n The government also argues that the requirement in Thompson’s plea agreement that he\\ntestify in a debtor’s examination “was only in service of the primary objective: ‘identifying and\\nrecovering assets.’” Appellee Br. at 28–29. Therefore, according to the government, to the\\nextent Thompson’s testimony was relevant to the identification and recovery of the assets,\\n§ 1826 is inapplicable. But as stated, the debtor’s examination amounts to testimonial conduct\\nthat would fall within § 1826 eighteen-month incarceration limitation. This is so without regard\\nto whether Thompson’s testimony would be necessary to assist the parties in recovering assets.\\n\\n As explained in further detail below, however, Thompson’s contempt was not predicated\\nonly on his failure to testify or answer questions; rather, because Thompson also failed to fulfill\\nthe non-testimonial requirements of his plea agreement, § 1826 does not limit Thompson’s\\nperiod of incarceration.\\n\\nB. Non-Testimonial Conduct\\n\\n As noted above, Thompson’s plea agreement required Thompson to “testify under oath at\\na proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s examination” and to answer “questions regarding the gold\\nstrike commemorative coins.” Crim. R. 14 at 2 (Page ID #49). This is not, however, the only\\nconduct Thompson was required to engage in under the plain language of the plea agreement\\nand, significantly, was not the only basis on which the district court held Thompson in contempt.\\nRather, Thompson’s plea agreement––and the district court’s November 2015 order requiring\\nThompson to abide by its terms––also explained that Thompson was required to “assist” the civil\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 12\\n\\n\\nplaintiffs “in identifying and recovering assets.” Id. at 2–3 (Page ID #49–50). Such a\\nrequirement to assist in “recovering assets” is broad: recovering assets could, and likely would,\\nrequire Thompson both to provide information regarding the location of assets and to undertake\\nvarious non-testimonial actions, such as signing a limited power of attorney to enable the parties\\nto review the contents of a trust and recover any assets located within the trust. See Crim. R. 108\\n(4/25/17 Status Order); Crim. R. 138 (11/27/17 Order Denying Mot. to Terminate Sanctions).3\\nBy requiring Thompson to “assist” the parties “in identifying and recovering assets,” the plea\\nagreement and the district court’s order explicitly left open the likelihood that Thompson’s mere\\ntestimony would be insufficient, particularly in “recovering” Thompson’s assets.\\n\\n Thompson counters that although the first sentence of paragraph 4(a) of the plea\\nagreement appears broad, the subsequent language indisputably limits what the parties meant by\\nthe term “assist.” However, the unambiguous language of the plea agreement does not support\\nThompson’s conclusion.4 While the agreement goes on to explain that “Defendant agrees to\\ntestify under oath at a proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s examination, to identify and recover\\nassets,” there is no suggestion in the agreement that the debtor’s examination is the only means\\nby which Thompson is expected (and indeed, required) to “assist” the parties “in identifying and\\nrecovering assets.” As noted above, the term “recover” clearly anticipates broader types of\\nactions than a debtor’s examination. Additionally, the fact that the plea agreement provides that,\\n“[a]fter [Thompson] answers questions in the debtor’s examination, a reasonable time will be\\n\\n 3Although Thompson does not address whether an order requiring him to sign a limited power of attorney\\nwould fall within § 1826’s limitations, we conclude such an action is clearly non-testimonial and thus outside the\\nscope of § 1826. The act of signing a limited power of attorney is a legal tool that does not, in and of itself, express\\nor contain any information. And unlike voice or handwriting exemplars, there is no informational value in the actual\\ndocument containing Thompson’s signature––it cannot be compared to other, similar documents, and although it\\nallows the parties to gain information by searching the contents of the trust, that information is not inherent to the\\ndocument bearing Thompson’s signature. Cf. Mitchell, 556 F.2d at 384; Palmer, 530 F.2d at 789 n.3. Thus,\\nalthough § 1826 enumerates various forms that “other information” may take, including “any book, paper,\\ndocument, record, recording or other material,” the plain language of § 1826 makes clear that it is the informational\\nvalue of those documents that designates them as “other information.” 28 U.S.C. § 1826.\\n 4Because we conclude that the terms of Thompson’s plea agreement are unambiguous, we need not\\nexamine whether the district court committed clear error in interpreting the facts underlying the agreement. See\\nUnited States v. Debreczeny, 69 F. App’x 702, 705–06 (6th Cir. 2003) (“If the terms of [a] plea agreement are\\nequivocal . . . , the district court has discretion to interpret its terms. ‘The content of a plea agreement and what the\\nparties agreed to is a question of fact for the district court that is reviewed for clear error.’” (quoting Lukse, 286 F.3d\\nat 909)).\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 13\\n\\n\\npermitted for a process amounting to civil discovery to verify answers and trace assets” and, if\\nthe government “is satisfied that all questions have [been] fully answered, it shall recommend to\\nthe Court that the civil contempt be deemed ‘cured,’” does not help Thompson. Similar to the\\nrequirement that Thompson sit for a debtor’s examination, this language does not indicate that\\nThompson will be required only to testify or provide “information.” Instead, it shows the\\nparties’ belief that, were Thompson to testify truthfully, the parties would be able successfully to\\n“verify [Thompson’s] answers and trace assets,” thus enabling both the identification and\\nrecovery of those assets. This provision does not implicitly or explicitly limit what “assist” in\\n“recovering assets” might entail. Finally, the plea agreement notes that “the identification of\\nproperty and assets shall proceed as a condition of Defendant’s cooperation under the terms of\\nthis Agreement.” Again, beyond reiterating Thompson’s responsibility to identify assets, a plain\\nreading of this statement does not limit what, precisely, Thompson will be required to do to assist\\nin recovering those assets. This statement merely specifies what one condition of the agreement\\nwould be––successfully identifying assets––rather than explicitly limiting Thompson’s\\nresponsibilities under the agreement.\\n\\n Along with encompassing non-testimonial conduct, the record evidence shows that\\nbefore the eighteen-month limitation under § 1826 became applicable, Thompson was, in fact, on\\nnotice that his contempt order included his failure to engage in non-testimonial conduct,\\nspecifically his failure to execute a limited power of attorney. During a debtor’s examination in\\nJanuary 2017, the civil parties attempted to have Thompson sign a limited power of attorney to\\npermit them to examine the contents of a trust Thompson owned to determine whether the trust\\ncontained the coins. Crim. R. 94 at 1–2 (1/16/17 Joint Status Report) (Page ID #859–60); Crim.\\nR. 99 at 9 (1/10/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #923). Thompson refused. Id. Following various\\norders and status conferences, in April 2017, the district court concluded that Thompson’s plea\\nagreement, “which requires Mr. Thompson ‘to assist the Parties in Case No. 06-CV-0292, and\\nany other party identified by the Court as having an interest, in identifying and recovering\\nassets,’ contemplates, among other things, exactly what the government seeks here: the signing\\nof a limited power of attorney that allows the government to probe the contents of the Belizean\\ntrust.” Crim. R. 108 at 3 (4/25/17 Status Order) (Page ID #990); see also Crim. R. 114 at 10\\n(4/21/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1026) (overruling Thompson’s objection to executing the\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 14\\n\\n\\npower of attorney). In the April 25, 2017 Status Order, the district court explicitly ordered\\nThompson to sign a limited power of attorney pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of his plea agreement\\nwithin twenty-eight days. Crim. R. 108 at 3 (Page ID #990). On May 23, 2017, the parties\\nsubmitted a joint status report explaining that Thompson had refused to execute the power of\\nattorney. Crim. R. 110 at 1 (Page ID #997). Thompson’s continued refusal was confirmed in\\ntwo later status hearings. See Crim. R. 127 at 4–5 (6/30/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1159–60);\\nCrim. R. 130 at 4 (8/18/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1195).\\n\\n Based on these records, the April 25, 2017 order––issued almost two months before the\\neighteen-month limitation under § 1826 became applicable––clearly put Thompson on notice\\nthat, in order to cure his contempt, Thompson not only would have to sit for a debtor’s\\nexamination and provide truthful testimony, but also would have to execute a limited power of\\nattorney to permit the parties to “probe” the contents of a Belizean trust. After all, Thompson\\nwas not held in contempt for only refusing to submit to the debtor’s examination; rather,\\nThompson was ordered to comply with all the terms of his plea agreement, including “assisting”\\nthe parties “in identifying and recovering assets.” See Crim. R. 67 at 73 (12/15/15 Contempt\\nHr’g Tr.) (Page ID #707) (“Mr. Thompson was in violation of the Court’s November 16, 2015,\\norder which simply required him to abide by the terms of his plea agreement, including\\nparagraph 4A which . . . stated that he would assist the parties in identifying and recovering the\\nassets . . . .”); R. 63 at 5 (12/16/15 Contempt Order) (Page ID #625) (“The Court will impose an\\nindefinite sentence of incarceration for civil contempt until Thompson complies with the Court’s\\norder to sit for the debtor’s examination and assist the Civil Litigants in identifying and\\nrecovering assets.”). Additionally, because Thompson was on notice that he was required to\\nengage in non-testimonial conduct to cure his contempt before his incarceration exceeded\\neighteen months, the fact that Thompson was also in contempt for failing to testify at a debtor’s\\nexamination––conduct which would fall under § 1826’s limitation––is immaterial. See\\nArmstrong, 470 F.3d at 110. Section 1826 thus does not provide Thompson relief.\\n\\n In summary, to the extent Thompson still refuses to comply with the district court’s order\\nto sign a limited power of attorney, § 1826 does not limit the length of Thompson’s\\nincarceration. Rather, the length Thompson’s incarceration is restricted only by the Due Process\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 15\\n\\n\\nClause and, if applicable, any changed circumstances which prohibit Thompson from curing his\\ncontempt. See Shillitani, 384 U.S. at 371 (“[T]he justification for coercive imprisonment as\\napplied to civil contempt depends upon the ability of the contemnor to comply with the court’s\\norder.”); Armstrong, 470 F.3d at 110–12 (examining whether the defendant’s confinement for\\ncivil contempt violated the Due Process Clause). Because Thompson has not presented any\\nargument under either theory, we affirm the district court’s order denying Thompson’s motion to\\nterminate his sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1826.\\n\\nC. District Court’s Statements During Status Hearings\\n\\n Although we determine that, because Thompson’s contempt currently includes his failure\\nto engage in non-testimonial conduct, § 1826 does not apply to him, one more issue warrants\\nfurther consideration, namely the district court’s evolving statements regarding Thompson’s\\ncontempt. Ultimately, we determine that this issue does not undermine our conclusion as to the\\napplicability of § 1826.\\n\\n Both in his appellate briefs and at oral argument, Thompson asserts that because the\\ndistrict court has framed his contempt in terms of his failure to testify and provide information,\\nThompson’s actions clearly fall within § 1826. See Appellant Br. at 19–21; Reply Br. at 3–5. It\\nis true that, when Thompson was initially held in contempt, the district court focused on\\nThompson’s refusal to answer questions posed to him during the debtor’s exam and noted that\\nThompson could cure his contempt if he provided truthful answers. See Crim. R. 67 at 69\\n(12/15/15 Contempt Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #703) (explaining that Thompson’s delays are always\\n“on the eve of each critical proceeding where we get to the pivotal question: Where is the\\ntreasure? Where are the assets? Where’s the loot?”); id. at 74 (Page ID #708) (“Once you\\nperform the act required by the Court, that is, agree to sit down and participate in the debtor’s\\nexamination, this term of incarceration will be lifted as you will have purged yourself of the\\ncontempt.”); id. at 78 (Page ID #712) (“[I]f you go in there and answer the questions directly and\\nhonestly and not evasively . . . then you can purge yourself of the contempt.”). The district court\\nreiterated these statements in later status hearings. See Crim. R. 115 at 20 (9/9/16 Status Hr’g\\nTr.) (Page ID #1070) (“We will reconvene this hearing on November the 9th to determine\\nwhether Mr. Thompson is ready to disclose the whereabouts of the gold.”); Crim. R. 116 at 4\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 16\\n\\n\\n(11/9/16 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1077) (“Mr. Thompson certainly has the ability to purge\\nhimself once he makes the decision . . . to disclose his knowledge of the whereabouts of the\\ngold.”). Were the district court to have explained Thompson’s contempt solely in terms of his\\nfailure to provide answers and testify, § 1826 would apply to him. See supra Part III.A. After\\nall, if a district court expressly (and consistently) limits the actions which a contemnor must\\nundertake in order to cure his contempt, then the contemnor cannot later be faulted for failing to\\ncure his contempt based on other conduct of which he had no notice.\\n\\n The problem for Thompson, however, is that the district court’s contempt order was not\\nlimited only to Thompson’s failure to attend a debtor’s examination and truthfully answer\\nquestions. Rather, as the district court explained at the contempt hearing and in the\\naccompanying written order, Thompson was held in contempt for failing to attend a debtor’s\\nexamination and otherwise perform the requirements of his plea agreement. See Crim. R. 67 at\\n73 (12/15/15 Contempt Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #707); R. 63 at 5 (12/16/15 Contempt Order) (Page\\nID #625). And as Thompson was well aware following the district court’s April 2017 hearing\\nand order, such contempt included his failure to sign a limited power of attorney.\\n\\n Furthermore, the district court’s statements that Thompson could cure his contempt by\\nsitting for a debtor’s examination and answering questions truthfully do not indicate that, in the\\nappropriate situation, Thompson would not also be required to engage in other, non-testimonial\\nconduct. Cf. Crim. R. 108 at 3 (4/25/17 Status Order) (Page ID #990) (requiring Thompson to\\nexecute a limited power of attorney). The district court’s statements are, instead, specific to the\\ncontext of the contempt hearing and status hearings and the factual issues then before the district\\ncourt. At the time the district court made these statements, Thompson’s only contemptuous\\nactions revolved around his failure to answer questions in good faith during a debtor’s\\nexamination; the concern regarding the limited power of attorney or the Belizean trust was not\\nyet squarely before the court. When that issue arose, the district court ordered Thompson to\\nfollow the terms of his plea agreement by executing the limited power of attorney and,\\nfurthermore, described Thompson’s contempt in terms of his refusal to execute the document.\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 17\\n\\n\\nSee Crim. R. 130 at 13 (8/18/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1204) (“Mr. Thompson can purge his\\ncontempt quite easily by signing the power of attorney and submitting to the debtor’s exam.”).5\\n\\n Finally, paragraph 4(a) of Thompson’s plea agreement explains that “the government\\nacknowledges that it is the Parties’ intention that any sanctions or consequences arising from\\nDefendant’s failure to cooperate in the identification and recovery of assets in Case No. 06-CV-\\n0292 be determined and imposed by this Court as part of the instant proceeding, and only by this\\nCourt as part of the instant proceeding.” Crim. R. 14 at 3 (Page ID #50). Thompson thus\\nexplicitly acknowledged and agreed to a situation in which, depending on Thompson’s failure to\\n“cooperate in the identification and recovery of assets,” the district court would be permitted to\\ndetermine which sanctions (such as civil contempt) would be appropriate. The district court did\\njust that when it ordered Thompson both to testify at a debtor’s examination and to execute a\\nlimited power of attorney in order to cure his civil contempt. Consequently, although the district\\ncourt’s directive to Thompson may have evolved based on the parties’ needs under the plea\\nagreement, this does not undermine our conclusion that Thompson’s sanctions fall outside the\\nscope of 28 U.S.C. § 1826.\\n\\n IV. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Thompson’s\\nmotion to terminate his civil-contempt sanctions.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 5During the April 21, 2017 status hearing in which the district court concluded that Thompson was required\\nto execute a limited power of attorney under his plea agreement, the district court again described Thompson’s\\ncontempt in terms of Thompson’s refusal to testify at the debtor’s examination. See Crim. R. 114 at 28 (Page ID\\n#1044) (“[H]e needs to be able to put himself in a position to purge himself of contempt by answering questions as\\nto the location of the gold, et cetera.”). However, context again limits the significance of the district court’s\\nstatement. During the April 2017 hearing, the district court ordered Thompson to execute the power of attorney,\\nreasoning it was required under his plea agreement. Id. at 10 (Page ID #1026). Thompson had not yet refused to\\ncomply with the district court’s order to sign the power of attorney, and any contempt Thompson faced was thus still\\nlimited to Thompson’s refusal to answer questions during the debtor’s examination. Notably, after Thompson\\nrefused to execute the limited power of attorney in May 2017, the district court broadened its discussions regarding\\nThompson’s contempt. See Crim. R. 127 at 15 (6/30/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1170) (asking whether\\nThompson was prepared “to comply with the plea agreement and purge himself of the contempt”); Crim. R. 130 at\\n13 (8/18/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1204) (noting that Thompson could purge his contempt “by signing the\\npower of attorney and submitting to the debtor’s exam” (emphasis added)).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4401574/\", \"author_raw\": \"KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MOORE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"CLAY"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"DONALD"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624321/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas G. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-29\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0107p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n > No. 17-4264\n v. │\n │\n │\n THOMAS G. THOMPSON, │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.\n No. 2:15-cr-00081-1—Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge.\n\n Argued: December 6, 2018\n\n Decided and Filed: May 29, 2019\n\n Before: MOORE, CLAY, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Russell S. Bensing, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Alexis J. Zouhary, UNITED\nSTATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Russell S.\nBensing, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Alexis J. Zouhary, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\nOFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Thomas Thompson\nappeals the district court’s denial of his motion to terminate his civil-contempt sanctions in\naccordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1826. Because we determine that Thompson’s sanctions do not fall\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 2\n\n\nunder the eighteen-month incarceration limitation of § 1826, we AFFIRM the district court’s\norder.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n This case originated as part of consolidated civil actions filed in 2005 and 2006 against\nThompson and numerous other business-entity defendants. See Civ. R. 3 (Compl.), 2:06-CV-\n00292 (S.D. Ohio)1; Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P’ship, 731 F.3d 608, 616–17 (6th Cir. 2013)\n(discussing the factual and procedural background of the civil case). The civil plaintiffs were a\ngroup of employees and one business hired by Thompson to assist him in locating a long-sunken\nship and recovering the treasures it contained. Williamson, 731 F.3d at 616. Following the\ndiscovery of the ship and the removal of various items, including gold, the plaintiffs filed suit to\nrecover some of the profits they contended they were owed. Id. During the course of that\nlitigation, the district court entered a preliminary injunction instructing Thompson that “he shall\nnot sell, encumber, transfer or diminish in value” any re-strike or commemorative gold coins he\nhad in his possession. Civ. R. 738 at 1–2 (Page ID #13314–15). If the coins were not in\nThompson’s possession, Thompson was instructed to “submit a declaration under oath\ndescribing in detail the parties to whom the coins were transferred, any consideration received or\noutstanding, the date of such transfer, and the names of the recipients.” Id. at 2 (Page ID\n#13315). The district court subsequently entered a temporary restraining order when Thompson\ntransferred the coins to a third-party trust. See Civ. R. 770 at 1 (Page ID #13704). The order\nprohibited the trust “from disposing of, encumbering, transferring or diminishing in value in any\nway the 500 gold restrike coins.” Id.\n\n Prior to the temporary restraining order but after Thompson failed to provide the\ninformation detailed in the preliminary injunction, the district court issued an order requiring\nThompson to attend a hearing in August 2012 to “show cause why the Court should not hold him\nin contempt.” Civ. R. 761 at 1 (Page ID #13490). The district court explained that if Thompson\ndid not attend the hearing, a warrant would be issued for his arrest. Id. When Thompson failed\n\n\n 1Because this appeal references two district-court cases, this opinion will refer to the record of the 2006\ncivil case as “Civ. R.” and the record of Thompson’s criminal case as “Crim. R.”\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 3\n\n\nto appear, and instead absconded to Florida, an arrest warrant was issued. See Crim. R. 3 at 2\n(Crim. Compl.) (Page ID #5). A criminal complaint was filed against Thompson charging him\nwith failing to comply with the district court’s orders in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).2 Id. at\nPage ID #3, 8. Following his arrest in January 2015, an information was filed charging\nThompson with violating § 401(3). Crim. R. 13.\n\n In March 2015, Thompson entered into a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, Crim. R. 14,\nwhich the district court later accepted, see Crim. R. 20 at 28–29 (Page ID #91–92). Pursuant to\nhis plea agreement, Thompson agreed to:\n\n assist the Parties in Case No. 06-CV-0292, and any other party identified by the\n Court as having an interest, in identifying and recovering assets. Defendant\n agrees to testify under oath at a proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s examination\n to identify and recover assets. This examination shall include, but is not limited\n to, questions regarding the gold strike commemorative coins which were the\n subject of previous orders in Case No. 06-CV-0292. After Defendant answers\n questions in the debtor’s examination, a reasonable time will be permitted for a\n process amounting to civil discovery to verify answers and trace assets. After the\n debtor’s examination and a reasona[b]le period of time for discovery, if the\n government is satisfied that all questions have fully [sic] answered, it shall\n recommend to the Court that the civil contempt be deemed “cured.” This term\n shall not bar the Court from adducing and ordering a sentence including\n incarceration in this case for criminal contempt. The government acknowledges\n that it is the Parties’ intention that the identification of property and assets shall\n proceed as a condition of Defendant’s cooperation under the terms of this\n Agreement and that the determination of whether Defendant has in fact\n cooperated in this regard shall be made by this Court and only by this Court,\n consistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Further, the\n government acknowledges that it is the Parties’ intention that any sanctions or\n consequences arising from Defendants’ failure to cooperate in the identification\n and recovery of assets in Case No. 06-CV-0292 be determined and imposed by\n this Court as part of the instant proceeding, and only by this Court as part of the\n instant proceeding . . . .\n\nCrim. R. 14 at 2–3 (Page ID #49–50). Prior to sentencing, certain parties from the civil action,\nas well as a state-appointed receiver from a connected state action, filed a motion to enforce the\n\n\n 218 U.S.C. § 401(3) states: “A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or\nimprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as . . . [d]isobedience or\nresistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 4\n\n\nplea agreement against Thompson. See Crim. R. 28 at 1 (Page ID #128). On September 22,\n2015, the district court ordered Thompson to “submit to a debtor’s examination, pursuant to the\nterms of his plea agreement, during the week of October 19, 2015.” Crim. R. 33 at 1–2 (Page ID\n#218–19).\n\n Although Thompson initially sat for the examination, the civil parties and receiver filed a\nmotion to hold Thompson in civil contempt for violating the plea agreement. See Crim. R. 46 at\n1–4 (Page ID #300–03). The movants contended that not only did Thompson refuse to provide\nsufficient answers to their questions regarding the location of the coins, but when the\ngovernment attempted to schedule another examination, “Thompson’s counsel announced that\nThompson [wa]s invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege and w[ould] not answer any further\nquestions.” Id. at 4 (Page ID #303). In response to this motion, on November 16, 2015, the\ndistrict court ordered Thompson “to submit to a second debtor’s examination by the Government\nand the Williamson plaintiffs” and “to comply with the terms of his plea agreement, in particular,\nSection 4(a).” Crim. R. 50 at 1 (Page ID #494). The district court then quoted from paragraph\n4(a) of the plea agreement, explaining that Thompson had agreed to:\n\n assist the Parties in Case No. 06-CV-0292, and any other party identified by the\n Court as having an interest, in identifying and recovering assets. Defendant\n agrees to testify under oath at a proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s examination,\n to identify and recover assets. This examination shall include, but is not limited\n to, questions regarding the gold strike commemorative coins which were the\n subject of previous orders in Case No. 06-CV-0292.\n\nId. at 2 (Page ID #495). The district court noted that “[i]f Thompson does not comply with the\nCourt’s Order to sit for the debtor’s examination, he will be ordered to show cause why he\nshould not be held in civil or criminal contempt for failure to comply with a Court order.” Id.\nFollowing another delay, Crim. R. 54 (12/4/15 Gov’t Notice) (Page ID #500), Thompson\nappeared at an examination on December 14, 2015, but refused to answer any questions, Crim.\nR. 56 at 1–2 (Show Cause Hr’g Order) (Page ID #505–06). The district court then ordered\nThompson to appear in court the next day to “show cause as to why this Court should not hold\nhim in civil or criminal contempt for failure to comply with the November 16, 2015 Order.”\nCrim. R. 56 at 2 (Page ID #506). The order quoted the same section of paragraph 4(a) of the\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 5\n\n\nplea agreement as the November 16, 2015 order. The show-cause hearing was scheduled for the\nsame day as his previously scheduled sentencing. Id.\n\n On December 15, 2015, the district court conducted Thompson’s criminal-contempt\nsentencing and civil-contempt show-cause hearing. After stating the sentencing factors under 18\nU.S.C. § 3553(a), the court sentenced Thompson to two years of imprisonment for criminal\ncontempt. Crim. R. 67 at 32–37 (Sentencing Tr.) (Page ID #666–71). However, the district\ncourt held Thompson’s criminal sentence in abeyance until Thompson completed any civil-\ncontempt sentence imposed during the show-cause hearing, which immediately followed the\ncriminal-contempt sentencing. Id. at 39 (Page ID #673). After the conclusion of the show-cause\nhearing, the district court held Thompson in civil contempt for “not cooperating during the”\nDecember 14, 2015 debtor’s exam, in violation of the district court’s November 16, 2015 order.\nId. at 73 (Page ID #707). The district court ordered Thompson to “be incarcerated indefinitely\nuntil you comply with this Court’s order to provide the type of information that you had\npreviously agreed to provide.” Id. at 73–74 (Page ID #707–08). He was also ordered to pay the\ncourt a fine of $1,000 per day. Id. at 75 (Page ID #709). In an accompanying written order, the\ndistrict court cited its “inherent power to enforce compliance with [its] lawful orders” as the\nbasis for its decision to order the civil-contempt sanctions. Crim. R. 63 at 3 (12/16/15 Contempt\nOrder) (Page ID #623) (quoting Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966)). The\ndistrict court concluded that it would assess Thompson’s compliance every sixty days. Id. at 5\n(Page ID #625). This court dismissed Thompson’s appeal of his criminal-contempt conviction\nand sentence for lack of jurisdiction because the district court had expressly reserved entry of\njudgment in the criminal case “pending Thompson’s purge of a civil contempt order entered in\nthe same case.” See United States v. Thompson, No. 15-4424 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016) (order).\n\n Upon reaching eighteen months of incarceration for civil contempt, Thompson sought to\nterminate his civil-contempt sanctions. Crim. R. 111. Thompson contended that his actions fell\nunder the recalcitrant-witness statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a), which provides:\n\n Whenever a witness in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand\n jury of the United States refuses without just cause shown to comply with an\n order of the court to testify or provide other information, including any book,\n paper, document, record, recording or other material, the court, upon such refusal,\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 6\n\n\n or when such refusal is duly brought to its attention, may summarily order his\n confinement at a suitable place until such time as the witness is willing to give\n such testimony or provide such information. No period of such confinement shall\n exceed the life of—\n (1) the court proceeding, or\n (2) the term of the grand jury, including extensions,\n before which such refusal to comply with the court order occurred, but in no event\n shall such confinement exceed eighteen months.\n\n28 U.S.C. § 1826(a). Because his confinement had reached eighteen months, Thompson asserted\nhe was entitled to release. Crim. R. 111 at 2 (Page ID #999). On November 27, 2017, the\ndistrict court denied Thompson’s motion, concluding that “[t]he plea agreement requires Mr.\nThompson not just to provide information, but also to ‘assist the Parties’ in ‘identifying and\nrecovering assets’ and otherwise to comply with the terms of his plea agreement.” Crim. R. 138\nat 4 (Page ID #1244). Noting that “the utility of Mr. Thompson’s assets as evidence is almost\nbeside the point” and that “it is the economic value of the treasure that the Court seeks,” the\ndistrict court determined that because Thompson was required both to testify and to help recover\nassets, § 1826 did not apply to him. Id. at 6 (Page ID #1246). Additionally, referencing a\nprevious status order in April 2017, Crim. R. 108, the district court noted that the plea agreement\ncontemplated non-testimonial acts, such as “the signing of a limited power of attorney that\nallows the government to probe the contents of the Belizean trust,” which the parties believed\ncontained some of the gold coins, Crim. R. 138 at 2 (Page ID #1242).\n\n On December 6, 2017, Thompson filed this timely appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.\n4(a)(1)(B). Following the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, a panel of this\ncourt expressly found that “[t]he district court’s order is effectively final, and thus appealable,”\nunder the collateral order doctrine. Order at 3 (6th Cir. Mar. 8, 2018).\n\n II. STANDARD OF REVIEW\n\n We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation, such as the scope of 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1826. United States v. White, 846 F.3d 170, 174 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2203\n(2017). As to the district court’s denial of Thompson’s motion to lift his sanctions, we ordinarily\nreview a district court’s interpretation of its own order for abuse of discretion. Michigan v. City\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 7\n\n\nof Allen Park, 954 F.2d 1201, 1213 (6th Cir. 1992). However, the unique procedural posture of\nThompson’s case disrupts this standard. When the district court initially considered whether\nThompson was in contempt, it examined its two prior orders––issued on September 22, 2015 and\non November 16, 2015––and the language of Thompson’s plea agreement. See Crim. R. 63 at 2–\n3 (12/16/15 Contempt Order) (Page ID #622–23). However, both the September and November\norders merely ordered Thompson to fulfill his obligations under the plea agreement and quoted\nparticular language from paragraph 4(a) of the agreement. See Crim. R. 33 at 1–2 (9/22/15\nOrder) (Page ID #218–19); Crim. R. 50 at 1–2 (11/16/15 Order) (Page ID #494–95). Similarly,\nin determining whether § 1826’s eighteen-month incarceration limit applied to Thompson’s\nsanctions, the district court again examined the language of the plea agreement, noting that the\ncourt had previously determined that Thompson was in contempt based on his failure to fulfill\nhis duties under the plea agreement. Crim. R. 63 (12/16/15 Contempt Order).\n\n Thus, although the district court was technically examining its December 2015 contempt\norder when it denied Thompson’s motion to lift his sanctions, because the district court’s order\nwas predicated on its interpretation of the plea agreement, the district court was more accurately\nexamining the terms and conditions of that agreement. Consequently, we will examine the\ndistrict court’s denial of Thompson’s motion for what it actually was: an interpretation of\nThompson’s plea agreement. Under these circumstances, we review de novo the district court’s\nconstruction of the plea agreement, while examining for clear error the district court’s factual\nconclusions “such as whether there was an agreement and the substance of that agreement.”\nUnited States v. Quesada, 607 F.3d 1128, 1131 (6th Cir. 2010). Finally, in interpreting plea\nagreements, “this Court uses traditional principles of contract law.” United States v. Lukse, 286\nF.3d 906, 909 (6th Cir. 2002). “Whether a contract term is ambiguous is a question of law for\nthe court to determine” under a de novo standard. Nw. Ohio Adm’rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox,\nInc., 270 F.3d 1018, 1023, 1025 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that “[w]e review the district court’s\nconclusions of law de novo”), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1606 (2002).\n\n III. DISCUSSION\n\n We have rarely interpreted the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1826. A review of the case law of\nthis court, as well as other Circuit courts, identifies two primary decisions addressing this statute:\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 8\n\n\nUnited States v. Mitchell, 556 F.2d 371 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 98 S. Ct. 406 (1977), and\nArmstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 486 (2007).\n\n In Mitchell, two criminal defendants were ordered to submit voice exemplars in\npreparation for their own trial. 556 F.2d at 381. The voice exemplars were necessary for the\ngovernment to match the criminal defendants to voice recordings taken during a sting operation.\nId. After the defendants refused to provide the exemplars, the district court held the defendants\nin civil contempt and ordered them incarcerated. Id. at 381, 383. The defendants asserted that\nunder § 1826, their incarceration could not exceed eighteen months. Id. at 384. Noting that\n§ 1826 was meant to limit the district court’s inherent authority to hold the defendants in civil\ncontempt, this court ultimately concluded that § 1826 was applicable and, therefore, defendants\ncould not be incarcerated in excess of eighteen months. Id. This court further explained that the\ndefendants were, indeed, “witnesses” as understood by the statute and that because the order\nrequired the defendants to provide “information” in the form of the voice exemplars, § 1826\nencompassed their conduct. Id.; see also Palmer v. United States, 530 F.2d 787, 789 & n.3 (8th\nCir. 1976) (concluding that handwriting exemplars constitute “other information” under § 1826).\n\n In Armstrong, the Second Circuit considered whether a district court’s order requiring the\ndefendant to turn over various corporate assets to a court-appointed receiver fell within § 1826.\n470 F.3d at 93. Noting that the Mitchell court determined that the order requiring the defendants\nto submit voice exemplars constituted an order to provide other information “presumably\nbecause the voice exemplars were sought for their informational content and had no other value,”\nthe Second Circuit ultimately concluded that an order requiring merely the production of assets\ndid not constitute an order to provide information. Id. at 109–10 (“[T]he order which Armstrong\nrefused to obey commands the production of gold bullion, valuable coins, and antiquities that are\nsought not because of any information they might contain, but because they are objects of\nmonetary value that are the property of the corporation in receivership.”). Finally, the Second\nCircuit explained that, although the production of a computer hard drive might fall within the\nstatute, where it “presumably contains records of the Princeton funds,” nonetheless the issue was\nmoot because Armstrong had been ordered to provide both the hard drive and the tangible assets.\nId. at 110. Given this legal background, we now examine whether, given the terms of\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 9\n\n\nThompson’s plea agreement, the statutory limitations of § 1826 apply to Thompson’s\ncontemptuous conduct.\n\nA. Order to Sit for A Debtor’s Examination\n\n As an initial matter, and for the sake of clarity given this procedurally and factually\ncomplicated case, we note that even if Thompson’s plea agreement required Thompson to\nengage in non-testimonial conduct, if Thompson were held in contempt solely for testimonial\nconduct, such as failing to participate in a debtor’s examination and answer questions truthfully,\n§ 1826 would plainly apply to him. Parts of Thompson’s plea agreement explained that\nThomson was required to “testify under oath at a proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s\nexamination” and that the examination would “include, but [wa]s not limited to, questions\nregarding the gold strike commemorative coins.” Crim. R. 14 at 2 (Page ID #49) (emphasis\nadded). Were Thompson to be held in contempt solely for failing to fulfill those particular\nrequirements, Thompson would clearly be “refus[ing] . . . to comply with an order of the court to\ntestify or provide other information.” 28 U.S.C. § 1826 (emphasis added). Put differently, the\nonly way Thompson could cure his contempt in such a scenario would be to engage in the exact\ntype of conduct encompassed by § 1826. None of the government’s arguments undermine this\nanalysis.\n\n First, even if Thompson’s plea agreement (and the district court’s order requiring him to\ncomply with its terms) encompasses non-testimonial conduct in addition to “testify[ing]” or\n“provid[ing] other information,” the possible scope of the agreement does not control if\nThompson’s only contemptuous conduct were refusing to testify in a debtor’s examination.\nArmstrong is instructive here. As noted above, the Second Circuit in Armstrong ultimately\ndetermined that because the defendant was in contempt for failing to follow an order requiring\nhim both to turn over assets (non-testimonial) and to surrender a computer hard drive containing\n“other information,” it ultimately did not matter that the hard drive would conceivably fall within\n§ 1826’s limitations. Armstrong, 470 F.3d at 110. However, the Second Circuit further\nexplained that, even though the order required Armstrong to engage in those two types of\nconduct, “[i]f Armstrong were being confined solely because of his refusal to produce the\ncomputer files, we would need to consider whether the eighteen-month cap of § 1826(a)\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 10\n\n\napplies.” Id. The Second Circuit’s comment was presumably based on the understanding that,\neven if § 1826 applied to Armstrong’s failure to turn over “other information”––i.e., the\ncomputer hard drive––because he was also required to engage in non-testimonial conduct which\ndid not have a corresponding incarceration limit––turning over the monetary assets––the\neighteen-month limitation did not ultimately impact the length of Armstrong’s incarceration for\ncivil contempt. Conversely, if Thompson were held in contempt solely for failing to testify––\nconduct that falls squarely within § 1826––Thompson’s incarceration for civil contempt could\nlast only eighteen months.\n\n In response, the government asserts that Thompson is not a “witness” as traditionally\nunderstood under § 1826 because Thompson’s testimony was sought only in service of finding\nitems (the gold coins) which had no independent informational value. Appellee Br. at 32–34.\nThe government’s argument finds some support in § 1826’s limited legislative history. See\nOrganized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922–23 (1970) (explaining\nthat the statute was enacted “to seek the eradication of organized crime in the United States by\nstrengthening the legal tools in the evidence-gathering process”); S. Rep. 91-617 at 57 (1969)\n(noting that the statute “represents the best efforts of the committee to codify and spell out the\npowers of the courts to deal with witnesses who are unlawfully withholding information\nnecessary to move forward an investigation”). However, given the procedural posture of this\ncase, we are not prepared to say that Thompson’s testimony would be of no evidentiary value to\nthe 2006 civil plaintiffs, particularly since those same plaintiffs were pursuing a conversion\nclaim against Thompson based on the gold coins. See generally Williamson, 731 F.3d at 616;\nsee also In re Younger, 986 F.2d 1376, 1378 (11th Cir. 1993) (concluding that § 1826 applies to\nbankruptcy proceedings and implicitly recognizing that the defendant’s “refus[al] to answer\nquestions in a bankruptcy case concerning the location of certain assets” which he had been\nordered to surrender fell under the eighteen-month incarceration limitation); In re Martin-\nTrigona, 732 F.2d 170, 174–76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 105 S. Ct. 191 (1984) (determining\nimplicitly that an order requiring the defendant to testify regarding the status of his assets in a\nbankruptcy proceeding fell under § 1826).\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 11\n\n\n Furthermore, as we noted in Mitchell, the limited legislative history of § 1826, while\ninstructive, is of “minimal value.” Mitchell, 556 F.2d at 384. Given the plain language of the\nstatute, were Thompson to be held in contempt for failing solely to sit for a debtor’s examination\nand to testify about the location of his assets, § 1826 would limit his incarceration for civil\ncontempt to eighteen months. See Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718,\n1725 (2017) (“[I]t is never our job to rewrite a constitutionally valid statutory text under the\nbanner of speculation about what Congress might have done had it faced a question that . . . it\nnever faced.”); Bridewell v. Cincinnati Reds, 155 F.3d 828, 830 (6th Cir. 1998) (“[W]e c[an]not\nlook to the legislative history to contravene the clear and unambiguous language of the statute.”).\n\n The government also argues that the requirement in Thompson’s plea agreement that he\ntestify in a debtor’s examination “was only in service of the primary objective: ‘identifying and\nrecovering assets.’” Appellee Br. at 28–29. Therefore, according to the government, to the\nextent Thompson’s testimony was relevant to the identification and recovery of the assets,\n§ 1826 is inapplicable. But as stated, the debtor’s examination amounts to testimonial conduct\nthat would fall within § 1826 eighteen-month incarceration limitation. This is so without regard\nto whether Thompson’s testimony would be necessary to assist the parties in recovering assets.\n\n As explained in further detail below, however, Thompson’s contempt was not predicated\nonly on his failure to testify or answer questions; rather, because Thompson also failed to fulfill\nthe non-testimonial requirements of his plea agreement, § 1826 does not limit Thompson’s\nperiod of incarceration.\n\nB. Non-Testimonial Conduct\n\n As noted above, Thompson’s plea agreement required Thompson to “testify under oath at\na proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s examination” and to answer “questions regarding the gold\nstrike commemorative coins.” Crim. R. 14 at 2 (Page ID #49). This is not, however, the only\nconduct Thompson was required to engage in under the plain language of the plea agreement\nand, significantly, was not the only basis on which the district court held Thompson in contempt.\nRather, Thompson’s plea agreement––and the district court’s November 2015 order requiring\nThompson to abide by its terms––also explained that Thompson was required to “assist” the civil\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 12\n\n\nplaintiffs “in identifying and recovering assets.” Id. at 2–3 (Page ID #49–50). Such a\nrequirement to assist in “recovering assets” is broad: recovering assets could, and likely would,\nrequire Thompson both to provide information regarding the location of assets and to undertake\nvarious non-testimonial actions, such as signing a limited power of attorney to enable the parties\nto review the contents of a trust and recover any assets located within the trust. See Crim. R. 108\n(4/25/17 Status Order); Crim. R. 138 (11/27/17 Order Denying Mot. to Terminate Sanctions).3\nBy requiring Thompson to “assist” the parties “in identifying and recovering assets,” the plea\nagreement and the district court’s order explicitly left open the likelihood that Thompson’s mere\ntestimony would be insufficient, particularly in “recovering” Thompson’s assets.\n\n Thompson counters that although the first sentence of paragraph 4(a) of the plea\nagreement appears broad, the subsequent language indisputably limits what the parties meant by\nthe term “assist.” However, the unambiguous language of the plea agreement does not support\nThompson’s conclusion.4 While the agreement goes on to explain that “Defendant agrees to\ntestify under oath at a proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s examination, to identify and recover\nassets,” there is no suggestion in the agreement that the debtor’s examination is the only means\nby which Thompson is expected (and indeed, required) to “assist” the parties “in identifying and\nrecovering assets.” As noted above, the term “recover” clearly anticipates broader types of\nactions than a debtor’s examination. Additionally, the fact that the plea agreement provides that,\n“[a]fter [Thompson] answers questions in the debtor’s examination, a reasonable time will be\n\n 3Although Thompson does not address whether an order requiring him to sign a limited power of attorney\nwould fall within § 1826’s limitations, we conclude such an action is clearly non-testimonial and thus outside the\nscope of § 1826. The act of signing a limited power of attorney is a legal tool that does not, in and of itself, express\nor contain any information. And unlike voice or handwriting exemplars, there is no informational value in the actual\ndocument containing Thompson’s signature––it cannot be compared to other, similar documents, and although it\nallows the parties to gain information by searching the contents of the trust, that information is not inherent to the\ndocument bearing Thompson’s signature. Cf. Mitchell, 556 F.2d at 384; Palmer, 530 F.2d at 789 n.3. Thus,\nalthough § 1826 enumerates various forms that “other information” may take, including “any book, paper,\ndocument, record, recording or other material,” the plain language of § 1826 makes clear that it is the informational\nvalue of those documents that designates them as “other information.” 28 U.S.C. § 1826.\n 4Because we conclude that the terms of Thompson’s plea agreement are unambiguous, we need not\nexamine whether the district court committed clear error in interpreting the facts underlying the agreement. See\nUnited States v. Debreczeny, 69 F. App’x 702, 705–06 (6th Cir. 2003) (“If the terms of [a] plea agreement are\nequivocal . . . , the district court has discretion to interpret its terms. ‘The content of a plea agreement and what the\nparties agreed to is a question of fact for the district court that is reviewed for clear error.’” (quoting Lukse, 286 F.3d\nat 909)).\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 13\n\n\npermitted for a process amounting to civil discovery to verify answers and trace assets” and, if\nthe government “is satisfied that all questions have [been] fully answered, it shall recommend to\nthe Court that the civil contempt be deemed ‘cured,’” does not help Thompson. Similar to the\nrequirement that Thompson sit for a debtor’s examination, this language does not indicate that\nThompson will be required only to testify or provide “information.” Instead, it shows the\nparties’ belief that, were Thompson to testify truthfully, the parties would be able successfully to\n“verify [Thompson’s] answers and trace assets,” thus enabling both the identification and\nrecovery of those assets. This provision does not implicitly or explicitly limit what “assist” in\n“recovering assets” might entail. Finally, the plea agreement notes that “the identification of\nproperty and assets shall proceed as a condition of Defendant’s cooperation under the terms of\nthis Agreement.” Again, beyond reiterating Thompson’s responsibility to identify assets, a plain\nreading of this statement does not limit what, precisely, Thompson will be required to do to assist\nin recovering those assets. This statement merely specifies what one condition of the agreement\nwould be––successfully identifying assets––rather than explicitly limiting Thompson’s\nresponsibilities under the agreement.\n\n Along with encompassing non-testimonial conduct, the record evidence shows that\nbefore the eighteen-month limitation under § 1826 became applicable, Thompson was, in fact, on\nnotice that his contempt order included his failure to engage in non-testimonial conduct,\nspecifically his failure to execute a limited power of attorney. During a debtor’s examination in\nJanuary 2017, the civil parties attempted to have Thompson sign a limited power of attorney to\npermit them to examine the contents of a trust Thompson owned to determine whether the trust\ncontained the coins. Crim. R. 94 at 1–2 (1/16/17 Joint Status Report) (Page ID #859–60); Crim.\nR. 99 at 9 (1/10/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #923). Thompson refused. Id. Following various\norders and status conferences, in April 2017, the district court concluded that Thompson’s plea\nagreement, “which requires Mr. Thompson ‘to assist the Parties in Case No. 06-CV-0292, and\nany other party identified by the Court as having an interest, in identifying and recovering\nassets,’ contemplates, among other things, exactly what the government seeks here: the signing\nof a limited power of attorney that allows the government to probe the contents of the Belizean\ntrust.” Crim. R. 108 at 3 (4/25/17 Status Order) (Page ID #990); see also Crim. R. 114 at 10\n(4/21/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1026) (overruling Thompson’s objection to executing the\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 14\n\n\npower of attorney). In the April 25, 2017 Status Order, the district court explicitly ordered\nThompson to sign a limited power of attorney pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of his plea agreement\nwithin twenty-eight days. Crim. R. 108 at 3 (Page ID #990). On May 23, 2017, the parties\nsubmitted a joint status report explaining that Thompson had refused to execute the power of\nattorney. Crim. R. 110 at 1 (Page ID #997). Thompson’s continued refusal was confirmed in\ntwo later status hearings. See Crim. R. 127 at 4–5 (6/30/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1159–60);\nCrim. R. 130 at 4 (8/18/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1195).\n\n Based on these records, the April 25, 2017 order––issued almost two months before the\neighteen-month limitation under § 1826 became applicable––clearly put Thompson on notice\nthat, in order to cure his contempt, Thompson not only would have to sit for a debtor’s\nexamination and provide truthful testimony, but also would have to execute a limited power of\nattorney to permit the parties to “probe” the contents of a Belizean trust. After all, Thompson\nwas not held in contempt for only refusing to submit to the debtor’s examination; rather,\nThompson was ordered to comply with all the terms of his plea agreement, including “assisting”\nthe parties “in identifying and recovering assets.” See Crim. R. 67 at 73 (12/15/15 Contempt\nHr’g Tr.) (Page ID #707) (“Mr. Thompson was in violation of the Court’s November 16, 2015,\norder which simply required him to abide by the terms of his plea agreement, including\nparagraph 4A which . . . stated that he would assist the parties in identifying and recovering the\nassets . . . .”); R. 63 at 5 (12/16/15 Contempt Order) (Page ID #625) (“The Court will impose an\nindefinite sentence of incarceration for civil contempt until Thompson complies with the Court’s\norder to sit for the debtor’s examination and assist the Civil Litigants in identifying and\nrecovering assets.”). Additionally, because Thompson was on notice that he was required to\nengage in non-testimonial conduct to cure his contempt before his incarceration exceeded\neighteen months, the fact that Thompson was also in contempt for failing to testify at a debtor’s\nexamination––conduct which would fall under § 1826’s limitation––is immaterial. See\nArmstrong, 470 F.3d at 110. Section 1826 thus does not provide Thompson relief.\n\n In summary, to the extent Thompson still refuses to comply with the district court’s order\nto sign a limited power of attorney, § 1826 does not limit the length of Thompson’s\nincarceration. Rather, the length Thompson’s incarceration is restricted only by the Due Process\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 15\n\n\nClause and, if applicable, any changed circumstances which prohibit Thompson from curing his\ncontempt. See Shillitani, 384 U.S. at 371 (“[T]he justification for coercive imprisonment as\napplied to civil contempt depends upon the ability of the contemnor to comply with the court’s\norder.”); Armstrong, 470 F.3d at 110–12 (examining whether the defendant’s confinement for\ncivil contempt violated the Due Process Clause). Because Thompson has not presented any\nargument under either theory, we affirm the district court’s order denying Thompson’s motion to\nterminate his sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1826.\n\nC. District Court’s Statements During Status Hearings\n\n Although we determine that, because Thompson’s contempt currently includes his failure\nto engage in non-testimonial conduct, § 1826 does not apply to him, one more issue warrants\nfurther consideration, namely the district court’s evolving statements regarding Thompson’s\ncontempt. Ultimately, we determine that this issue does not undermine our conclusion as to the\napplicability of § 1826.\n\n Both in his appellate briefs and at oral argument, Thompson asserts that because the\ndistrict court has framed his contempt in terms of his failure to testify and provide information,\nThompson’s actions clearly fall within § 1826. See Appellant Br. at 19–21; Reply Br. at 3–5. It\nis true that, when Thompson was initially held in contempt, the district court focused on\nThompson’s refusal to answer questions posed to him during the debtor’s exam and noted that\nThompson could cure his contempt if he provided truthful answers. See Crim. R. 67 at 69\n(12/15/15 Contempt Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #703) (explaining that Thompson’s delays are always\n“on the eve of each critical proceeding where we get to the pivotal question: Where is the\ntreasure? Where are the assets? Where’s the loot?”); id. at 74 (Page ID #708) (“Once you\nperform the act required by the Court, that is, agree to sit down and participate in the debtor’s\nexamination, this term of incarceration will be lifted as you will have purged yourself of the\ncontempt.”); id. at 78 (Page ID #712) (“[I]f you go in there and answer the questions directly and\nhonestly and not evasively . . . then you can purge yourself of the contempt.”). The district court\nreiterated these statements in later status hearings. See Crim. R. 115 at 20 (9/9/16 Status Hr’g\nTr.) (Page ID #1070) (“We will reconvene this hearing on November the 9th to determine\nwhether Mr. Thompson is ready to disclose the whereabouts of the gold.”); Crim. R. 116 at 4\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 16\n\n\n(11/9/16 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1077) (“Mr. Thompson certainly has the ability to purge\nhimself once he makes the decision . . . to disclose his knowledge of the whereabouts of the\ngold.”). Were the district court to have explained Thompson’s contempt solely in terms of his\nfailure to provide answers and testify, § 1826 would apply to him. See supra Part III.A. After\nall, if a district court expressly (and consistently) limits the actions which a contemnor must\nundertake in order to cure his contempt, then the contemnor cannot later be faulted for failing to\ncure his contempt based on other conduct of which he had no notice.\n\n The problem for Thompson, however, is that the district court’s contempt order was not\nlimited only to Thompson’s failure to attend a debtor’s examination and truthfully answer\nquestions. Rather, as the district court explained at the contempt hearing and in the\naccompanying written order, Thompson was held in contempt for failing to attend a debtor’s\nexamination and otherwise perform the requirements of his plea agreement. See Crim. R. 67 at\n73 (12/15/15 Contempt Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #707); R. 63 at 5 (12/16/15 Contempt Order) (Page\nID #625). And as Thompson was well aware following the district court’s April 2017 hearing\nand order, such contempt included his failure to sign a limited power of attorney.\n\n Furthermore, the district court’s statements that Thompson could cure his contempt by\nsitting for a debtor’s examination and answering questions truthfully do not indicate that, in the\nappropriate situation, Thompson would not also be required to engage in other, non-testimonial\nconduct. Cf. Crim. R. 108 at 3 (4/25/17 Status Order) (Page ID #990) (requiring Thompson to\nexecute a limited power of attorney). The district court’s statements are, instead, specific to the\ncontext of the contempt hearing and status hearings and the factual issues then before the district\ncourt. At the time the district court made these statements, Thompson’s only contemptuous\nactions revolved around his failure to answer questions in good faith during a debtor’s\nexamination; the concern regarding the limited power of attorney or the Belizean trust was not\nyet squarely before the court. When that issue arose, the district court ordered Thompson to\nfollow the terms of his plea agreement by executing the limited power of attorney and,\nfurthermore, described Thompson’s contempt in terms of his refusal to execute the document.\n\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 17\n\n\nSee Crim. R. 130 at 13 (8/18/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1204) (“Mr. Thompson can purge his\ncontempt quite easily by signing the power of attorney and submitting to the debtor’s exam.”).5\n\n Finally, paragraph 4(a) of Thompson’s plea agreement explains that “the government\nacknowledges that it is the Parties’ intention that any sanctions or consequences arising from\nDefendant’s failure to cooperate in the identification and recovery of assets in Case No. 06-CV-\n0292 be determined and imposed by this Court as part of the instant proceeding, and only by this\nCourt as part of the instant proceeding.” Crim. R. 14 at 3 (Page ID #50). Thompson thus\nexplicitly acknowledged and agreed to a situation in which, depending on Thompson’s failure to\n“cooperate in the identification and recovery of assets,” the district court would be permitted to\ndetermine which sanctions (such as civil contempt) would be appropriate. The district court did\njust that when it ordered Thompson both to testify at a debtor’s examination and to execute a\nlimited power of attorney in order to cure his civil contempt. Consequently, although the district\ncourt’s directive to Thompson may have evolved based on the parties’ needs under the plea\nagreement, this does not undermine our conclusion that Thompson’s sanctions fall outside the\nscope of 28 U.S.C. § 1826.\n\n IV. CONCLUSION\n\n For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Thompson’s\nmotion to terminate his civil-contempt sanctions.\n\n\n\n\n 5During the April 21, 2017 status hearing in which the district court concluded that Thompson was required\nto execute a limited power of attorney under his plea agreement, the district court again described Thompson’s\ncontempt in terms of Thompson’s refusal to testify at the debtor’s examination. See Crim. R. 114 at 28 (Page ID\n#1044) (“[H]e needs to be able to put himself in a position to purge himself of contempt by answering questions as\nto the location of the gold, et cetera.”). However, context again limits the significance of the district court’s\nstatement. During the April 2017 hearing, the district court ordered Thompson to execute the power of attorney,\nreasoning it was required under his plea agreement. Id. at 10 (Page ID #1026). Thompson had not yet refused to\ncomply with the district court’s order to sign the power of attorney, and any contempt Thompson faced was thus still\nlimited to Thompson’s refusal to answer questions during the debtor’s examination. Notably, after Thompson\nrefused to execute the limited power of attorney in May 2017, the district court broadened its discussions regarding\nThompson’s contempt. See Crim. R. 127 at 15 (6/30/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1170) (asking whether\nThompson was prepared “to comply with the plea agreement and purge himself of the contempt”); Crim. R. 130 at\n13 (8/18/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1204) (noting that Thompson could purge his contempt “by signing the\npower of attorney and submitting to the debtor’s exam” (emphasis added)).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas G. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-29\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0107p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 17-4264\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n THOMAS G. THOMPSON, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.\\n No. 2:15-cr-00081-1—Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: December 6, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 29, 2019\\n\\n Before: MOORE, CLAY, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Russell S. Bensing, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Alexis J. Zouhary, UNITED\\nSTATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Russell S.\\nBensing, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Alexis J. Zouhary, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\\nOFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Thomas Thompson\\nappeals the district court’s denial of his motion to terminate his civil-contempt sanctions in\\naccordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1826. Because we determine that Thompson’s sanctions do not fall\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 2\\n\\n\\nunder the eighteen-month incarceration limitation of § 1826, we AFFIRM the district court’s\\norder.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n This case originated as part of consolidated civil actions filed in 2005 and 2006 against\\nThompson and numerous other business-entity defendants. See Civ. R. 3 (Compl.), 2:06-CV-\\n00292 (S.D. Ohio)1; Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P’ship, 731 F.3d 608, 616–17 (6th Cir. 2013)\\n(discussing the factual and procedural background of the civil case). The civil plaintiffs were a\\ngroup of employees and one business hired by Thompson to assist him in locating a long-sunken\\nship and recovering the treasures it contained. Williamson, 731 F.3d at 616. Following the\\ndiscovery of the ship and the removal of various items, including gold, the plaintiffs filed suit to\\nrecover some of the profits they contended they were owed. Id. During the course of that\\nlitigation, the district court entered a preliminary injunction instructing Thompson that “he shall\\nnot sell, encumber, transfer or diminish in value” any re-strike or commemorative gold coins he\\nhad in his possession. Civ. R. 738 at 1–2 (Page ID #13314–15). If the coins were not in\\nThompson’s possession, Thompson was instructed to “submit a declaration under oath\\ndescribing in detail the parties to whom the coins were transferred, any consideration received or\\noutstanding, the date of such transfer, and the names of the recipients.” Id. at 2 (Page ID\\n#13315). The district court subsequently entered a temporary restraining order when Thompson\\ntransferred the coins to a third-party trust. See Civ. R. 770 at 1 (Page ID #13704). The order\\nprohibited the trust “from disposing of, encumbering, transferring or diminishing in value in any\\nway the 500 gold restrike coins.” Id.\\n\\n Prior to the temporary restraining order but after Thompson failed to provide the\\ninformation detailed in the preliminary injunction, the district court issued an order requiring\\nThompson to attend a hearing in August 2012 to “show cause why the Court should not hold him\\nin contempt.” Civ. R. 761 at 1 (Page ID #13490). The district court explained that if Thompson\\ndid not attend the hearing, a warrant would be issued for his arrest. Id. When Thompson failed\\n\\n\\n 1Because this appeal references two district-court cases, this opinion will refer to the record of the 2006\\ncivil case as “Civ. R.” and the record of Thompson’s criminal case as “Crim. R.”\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 3\\n\\n\\nto appear, and instead absconded to Florida, an arrest warrant was issued. See Crim. R. 3 at 2\\n(Crim. Compl.) (Page ID #5). A criminal complaint was filed against Thompson charging him\\nwith failing to comply with the district court’s orders in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).2 Id. at\\nPage ID #3, 8. Following his arrest in January 2015, an information was filed charging\\nThompson with violating § 401(3). Crim. R. 13.\\n\\n In March 2015, Thompson entered into a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, Crim. R. 14,\\nwhich the district court later accepted, see Crim. R. 20 at 28–29 (Page ID #91–92). Pursuant to\\nhis plea agreement, Thompson agreed to:\\n\\n assist the Parties in Case No. 06-CV-0292, and any other party identified by the\\n Court as having an interest, in identifying and recovering assets. Defendant\\n agrees to testify under oath at a proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s examination\\n to identify and recover assets. This examination shall include, but is not limited\\n to, questions regarding the gold strike commemorative coins which were the\\n subject of previous orders in Case No. 06-CV-0292. After Defendant answers\\n questions in the debtor’s examination, a reasonable time will be permitted for a\\n process amounting to civil discovery to verify answers and trace assets. After the\\n debtor’s examination and a reasona[b]le period of time for discovery, if the\\n government is satisfied that all questions have fully [sic] answered, it shall\\n recommend to the Court that the civil contempt be deemed “cured.” This term\\n shall not bar the Court from adducing and ordering a sentence including\\n incarceration in this case for criminal contempt. The government acknowledges\\n that it is the Parties’ intention that the identification of property and assets shall\\n proceed as a condition of Defendant’s cooperation under the terms of this\\n Agreement and that the determination of whether Defendant has in fact\\n cooperated in this regard shall be made by this Court and only by this Court,\\n consistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Further, the\\n government acknowledges that it is the Parties’ intention that any sanctions or\\n consequences arising from Defendants’ failure to cooperate in the identification\\n and recovery of assets in Case No. 06-CV-0292 be determined and imposed by\\n this Court as part of the instant proceeding, and only by this Court as part of the\\n instant proceeding . . . .\\n\\nCrim. R. 14 at 2–3 (Page ID #49–50). Prior to sentencing, certain parties from the civil action,\\nas well as a state-appointed receiver from a connected state action, filed a motion to enforce the\\n\\n\\n 218 U.S.C. § 401(3) states: “A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or\\nimprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as . . . [d]isobedience or\\nresistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 4\\n\\n\\nplea agreement against Thompson. See Crim. R. 28 at 1 (Page ID #128). On September 22,\\n2015, the district court ordered Thompson to “submit to a debtor’s examination, pursuant to the\\nterms of his plea agreement, during the week of October 19, 2015.” Crim. R. 33 at 1–2 (Page ID\\n#218–19).\\n\\n Although Thompson initially sat for the examination, the civil parties and receiver filed a\\nmotion to hold Thompson in civil contempt for violating the plea agreement. See Crim. R. 46 at\\n1–4 (Page ID #300–03). The movants contended that not only did Thompson refuse to provide\\nsufficient answers to their questions regarding the location of the coins, but when the\\ngovernment attempted to schedule another examination, “Thompson’s counsel announced that\\nThompson [wa]s invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege and w[ould] not answer any further\\nquestions.” Id. at 4 (Page ID #303). In response to this motion, on November 16, 2015, the\\ndistrict court ordered Thompson “to submit to a second debtor’s examination by the Government\\nand the Williamson plaintiffs” and “to comply with the terms of his plea agreement, in particular,\\nSection 4(a).” Crim. R. 50 at 1 (Page ID #494). The district court then quoted from paragraph\\n4(a) of the plea agreement, explaining that Thompson had agreed to:\\n\\n assist the Parties in Case No. 06-CV-0292, and any other party identified by the\\n Court as having an interest, in identifying and recovering assets. Defendant\\n agrees to testify under oath at a proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s examination,\\n to identify and recover assets. This examination shall include, but is not limited\\n to, questions regarding the gold strike commemorative coins which were the\\n subject of previous orders in Case No. 06-CV-0292.\\n\\nId. at 2 (Page ID #495). The district court noted that “[i]f Thompson does not comply with the\\nCourt’s Order to sit for the debtor’s examination, he will be ordered to show cause why he\\nshould not be held in civil or criminal contempt for failure to comply with a Court order.” Id.\\nFollowing another delay, Crim. R. 54 (12/4/15 Gov’t Notice) (Page ID #500), Thompson\\nappeared at an examination on December 14, 2015, but refused to answer any questions, Crim.\\nR. 56 at 1–2 (Show Cause Hr’g Order) (Page ID #505–06). The district court then ordered\\nThompson to appear in court the next day to “show cause as to why this Court should not hold\\nhim in civil or criminal contempt for failure to comply with the November 16, 2015 Order.”\\nCrim. R. 56 at 2 (Page ID #506). The order quoted the same section of paragraph 4(a) of the\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 5\\n\\n\\nplea agreement as the November 16, 2015 order. The show-cause hearing was scheduled for the\\nsame day as his previously scheduled sentencing. Id.\\n\\n On December 15, 2015, the district court conducted Thompson’s criminal-contempt\\nsentencing and civil-contempt show-cause hearing. After stating the sentencing factors under 18\\nU.S.C. § 3553(a), the court sentenced Thompson to two years of imprisonment for criminal\\ncontempt. Crim. R. 67 at 32–37 (Sentencing Tr.) (Page ID #666–71). However, the district\\ncourt held Thompson’s criminal sentence in abeyance until Thompson completed any civil-\\ncontempt sentence imposed during the show-cause hearing, which immediately followed the\\ncriminal-contempt sentencing. Id. at 39 (Page ID #673). After the conclusion of the show-cause\\nhearing, the district court held Thompson in civil contempt for “not cooperating during the”\\nDecember 14, 2015 debtor’s exam, in violation of the district court’s November 16, 2015 order.\\nId. at 73 (Page ID #707). The district court ordered Thompson to “be incarcerated indefinitely\\nuntil you comply with this Court’s order to provide the type of information that you had\\npreviously agreed to provide.” Id. at 73–74 (Page ID #707–08). He was also ordered to pay the\\ncourt a fine of $1,000 per day. Id. at 75 (Page ID #709). In an accompanying written order, the\\ndistrict court cited its “inherent power to enforce compliance with [its] lawful orders” as the\\nbasis for its decision to order the civil-contempt sanctions. Crim. R. 63 at 3 (12/16/15 Contempt\\nOrder) (Page ID #623) (quoting Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966)). The\\ndistrict court concluded that it would assess Thompson’s compliance every sixty days. Id. at 5\\n(Page ID #625). This court dismissed Thompson’s appeal of his criminal-contempt conviction\\nand sentence for lack of jurisdiction because the district court had expressly reserved entry of\\njudgment in the criminal case “pending Thompson’s purge of a civil contempt order entered in\\nthe same case.” See United States v. Thompson, No. 15-4424 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016) (order).\\n\\n Upon reaching eighteen months of incarceration for civil contempt, Thompson sought to\\nterminate his civil-contempt sanctions. Crim. R. 111. Thompson contended that his actions fell\\nunder the recalcitrant-witness statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a), which provides:\\n\\n Whenever a witness in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand\\n jury of the United States refuses without just cause shown to comply with an\\n order of the court to testify or provide other information, including any book,\\n paper, document, record, recording or other material, the court, upon such refusal,\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 6\\n\\n\\n or when such refusal is duly brought to its attention, may summarily order his\\n confinement at a suitable place until such time as the witness is willing to give\\n such testimony or provide such information. No period of such confinement shall\\n exceed the life of—\\n (1) the court proceeding, or\\n (2) the term of the grand jury, including extensions,\\n before which such refusal to comply with the court order occurred, but in no event\\n shall such confinement exceed eighteen months.\\n\\n28 U.S.C. § 1826(a). Because his confinement had reached eighteen months, Thompson asserted\\nhe was entitled to release. Crim. R. 111 at 2 (Page ID #999). On November 27, 2017, the\\ndistrict court denied Thompson’s motion, concluding that “[t]he plea agreement requires Mr.\\nThompson not just to provide information, but also to ‘assist the Parties’ in ‘identifying and\\nrecovering assets’ and otherwise to comply with the terms of his plea agreement.” Crim. R. 138\\nat 4 (Page ID #1244). Noting that “the utility of Mr. Thompson’s assets as evidence is almost\\nbeside the point” and that “it is the economic value of the treasure that the Court seeks,” the\\ndistrict court determined that because Thompson was required both to testify and to help recover\\nassets, § 1826 did not apply to him. Id. at 6 (Page ID #1246). Additionally, referencing a\\nprevious status order in April 2017, Crim. R. 108, the district court noted that the plea agreement\\ncontemplated non-testimonial acts, such as “the signing of a limited power of attorney that\\nallows the government to probe the contents of the Belizean trust,” which the parties believed\\ncontained some of the gold coins, Crim. R. 138 at 2 (Page ID #1242).\\n\\n On December 6, 2017, Thompson filed this timely appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.\\n4(a)(1)(B). Following the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, a panel of this\\ncourt expressly found that “[t]he district court’s order is effectively final, and thus appealable,”\\nunder the collateral order doctrine. Order at 3 (6th Cir. Mar. 8, 2018).\\n\\n II. STANDARD OF REVIEW\\n\\n We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation, such as the scope of 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1826. United States v. White, 846 F.3d 170, 174 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2203\\n(2017). As to the district court’s denial of Thompson’s motion to lift his sanctions, we ordinarily\\nreview a district court’s interpretation of its own order for abuse of discretion. Michigan v. City\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 7\\n\\n\\nof Allen Park, 954 F.2d 1201, 1213 (6th Cir. 1992). However, the unique procedural posture of\\nThompson’s case disrupts this standard. When the district court initially considered whether\\nThompson was in contempt, it examined its two prior orders––issued on September 22, 2015 and\\non November 16, 2015––and the language of Thompson’s plea agreement. See Crim. R. 63 at 2–\\n3 (12/16/15 Contempt Order) (Page ID #622–23). However, both the September and November\\norders merely ordered Thompson to fulfill his obligations under the plea agreement and quoted\\nparticular language from paragraph 4(a) of the agreement. See Crim. R. 33 at 1–2 (9/22/15\\nOrder) (Page ID #218–19); Crim. R. 50 at 1–2 (11/16/15 Order) (Page ID #494–95). Similarly,\\nin determining whether § 1826’s eighteen-month incarceration limit applied to Thompson’s\\nsanctions, the district court again examined the language of the plea agreement, noting that the\\ncourt had previously determined that Thompson was in contempt based on his failure to fulfill\\nhis duties under the plea agreement. Crim. R. 63 (12/16/15 Contempt Order).\\n\\n Thus, although the district court was technically examining its December 2015 contempt\\norder when it denied Thompson’s motion to lift his sanctions, because the district court’s order\\nwas predicated on its interpretation of the plea agreement, the district court was more accurately\\nexamining the terms and conditions of that agreement. Consequently, we will examine the\\ndistrict court’s denial of Thompson’s motion for what it actually was: an interpretation of\\nThompson’s plea agreement. Under these circumstances, we review de novo the district court’s\\nconstruction of the plea agreement, while examining for clear error the district court’s factual\\nconclusions “such as whether there was an agreement and the substance of that agreement.”\\nUnited States v. Quesada, 607 F.3d 1128, 1131 (6th Cir. 2010). Finally, in interpreting plea\\nagreements, “this Court uses traditional principles of contract law.” United States v. Lukse, 286\\nF.3d 906, 909 (6th Cir. 2002). “Whether a contract term is ambiguous is a question of law for\\nthe court to determine” under a de novo standard. Nw. Ohio Adm’rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox,\\nInc., 270 F.3d 1018, 1023, 1025 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that “[w]e review the district court’s\\nconclusions of law de novo”), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1606 (2002).\\n\\n III. DISCUSSION\\n\\n We have rarely interpreted the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1826. A review of the case law of\\nthis court, as well as other Circuit courts, identifies two primary decisions addressing this statute:\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 8\\n\\n\\nUnited States v. Mitchell, 556 F.2d 371 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 98 S. Ct. 406 (1977), and\\nArmstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 486 (2007).\\n\\n In Mitchell, two criminal defendants were ordered to submit voice exemplars in\\npreparation for their own trial. 556 F.2d at 381. The voice exemplars were necessary for the\\ngovernment to match the criminal defendants to voice recordings taken during a sting operation.\\nId. After the defendants refused to provide the exemplars, the district court held the defendants\\nin civil contempt and ordered them incarcerated. Id. at 381, 383. The defendants asserted that\\nunder § 1826, their incarceration could not exceed eighteen months. Id. at 384. Noting that\\n§ 1826 was meant to limit the district court’s inherent authority to hold the defendants in civil\\ncontempt, this court ultimately concluded that § 1826 was applicable and, therefore, defendants\\ncould not be incarcerated in excess of eighteen months. Id. This court further explained that the\\ndefendants were, indeed, “witnesses” as understood by the statute and that because the order\\nrequired the defendants to provide “information” in the form of the voice exemplars, § 1826\\nencompassed their conduct. Id.; see also Palmer v. United States, 530 F.2d 787, 789 & n.3 (8th\\nCir. 1976) (concluding that handwriting exemplars constitute “other information” under § 1826).\\n\\n In Armstrong, the Second Circuit considered whether a district court’s order requiring the\\ndefendant to turn over various corporate assets to a court-appointed receiver fell within § 1826.\\n470 F.3d at 93. Noting that the Mitchell court determined that the order requiring the defendants\\nto submit voice exemplars constituted an order to provide other information “presumably\\nbecause the voice exemplars were sought for their informational content and had no other value,”\\nthe Second Circuit ultimately concluded that an order requiring merely the production of assets\\ndid not constitute an order to provide information. Id. at 109–10 (“[T]he order which Armstrong\\nrefused to obey commands the production of gold bullion, valuable coins, and antiquities that are\\nsought not because of any information they might contain, but because they are objects of\\nmonetary value that are the property of the corporation in receivership.”). Finally, the Second\\nCircuit explained that, although the production of a computer hard drive might fall within the\\nstatute, where it “presumably contains records of the Princeton funds,” nonetheless the issue was\\nmoot because Armstrong had been ordered to provide both the hard drive and the tangible assets.\\nId. at 110. Given this legal background, we now examine whether, given the terms of\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 9\\n\\n\\nThompson’s plea agreement, the statutory limitations of § 1826 apply to Thompson’s\\ncontemptuous conduct.\\n\\nA. Order to Sit for A Debtor’s Examination\\n\\n As an initial matter, and for the sake of clarity given this procedurally and factually\\ncomplicated case, we note that even if Thompson’s plea agreement required Thompson to\\nengage in non-testimonial conduct, if Thompson were held in contempt solely for testimonial\\nconduct, such as failing to participate in a debtor’s examination and answer questions truthfully,\\n§ 1826 would plainly apply to him. Parts of Thompson’s plea agreement explained that\\nThomson was required to “testify under oath at a proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s\\nexamination” and that the examination would “include, but [wa]s not limited to, questions\\nregarding the gold strike commemorative coins.” Crim. R. 14 at 2 (Page ID #49) (emphasis\\nadded). Were Thompson to be held in contempt solely for failing to fulfill those particular\\nrequirements, Thompson would clearly be “refus[ing] . . . to comply with an order of the court to\\ntestify or provide other information.” 28 U.S.C. § 1826 (emphasis added). Put differently, the\\nonly way Thompson could cure his contempt in such a scenario would be to engage in the exact\\ntype of conduct encompassed by § 1826. None of the government’s arguments undermine this\\nanalysis.\\n\\n First, even if Thompson’s plea agreement (and the district court’s order requiring him to\\ncomply with its terms) encompasses non-testimonial conduct in addition to “testify[ing]” or\\n“provid[ing] other information,” the possible scope of the agreement does not control if\\nThompson’s only contemptuous conduct were refusing to testify in a debtor’s examination.\\nArmstrong is instructive here. As noted above, the Second Circuit in Armstrong ultimately\\ndetermined that because the defendant was in contempt for failing to follow an order requiring\\nhim both to turn over assets (non-testimonial) and to surrender a computer hard drive containing\\n“other information,” it ultimately did not matter that the hard drive would conceivably fall within\\n§ 1826’s limitations. Armstrong, 470 F.3d at 110. However, the Second Circuit further\\nexplained that, even though the order required Armstrong to engage in those two types of\\nconduct, “[i]f Armstrong were being confined solely because of his refusal to produce the\\ncomputer files, we would need to consider whether the eighteen-month cap of § 1826(a)\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 10\\n\\n\\napplies.” Id. The Second Circuit’s comment was presumably based on the understanding that,\\neven if § 1826 applied to Armstrong’s failure to turn over “other information”––i.e., the\\ncomputer hard drive––because he was also required to engage in non-testimonial conduct which\\ndid not have a corresponding incarceration limit––turning over the monetary assets––the\\neighteen-month limitation did not ultimately impact the length of Armstrong’s incarceration for\\ncivil contempt. Conversely, if Thompson were held in contempt solely for failing to testify––\\nconduct that falls squarely within § 1826––Thompson’s incarceration for civil contempt could\\nlast only eighteen months.\\n\\n In response, the government asserts that Thompson is not a “witness” as traditionally\\nunderstood under § 1826 because Thompson’s testimony was sought only in service of finding\\nitems (the gold coins) which had no independent informational value. Appellee Br. at 32–34.\\nThe government’s argument finds some support in § 1826’s limited legislative history. See\\nOrganized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922–23 (1970) (explaining\\nthat the statute was enacted “to seek the eradication of organized crime in the United States by\\nstrengthening the legal tools in the evidence-gathering process”); S. Rep. 91-617 at 57 (1969)\\n(noting that the statute “represents the best efforts of the committee to codify and spell out the\\npowers of the courts to deal with witnesses who are unlawfully withholding information\\nnecessary to move forward an investigation”). However, given the procedural posture of this\\ncase, we are not prepared to say that Thompson’s testimony would be of no evidentiary value to\\nthe 2006 civil plaintiffs, particularly since those same plaintiffs were pursuing a conversion\\nclaim against Thompson based on the gold coins. See generally Williamson, 731 F.3d at 616;\\nsee also In re Younger, 986 F.2d 1376, 1378 (11th Cir. 1993) (concluding that § 1826 applies to\\nbankruptcy proceedings and implicitly recognizing that the defendant’s “refus[al] to answer\\nquestions in a bankruptcy case concerning the location of certain assets” which he had been\\nordered to surrender fell under the eighteen-month incarceration limitation); In re Martin-\\nTrigona, 732 F.2d 170, 174–76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 105 S. Ct. 191 (1984) (determining\\nimplicitly that an order requiring the defendant to testify regarding the status of his assets in a\\nbankruptcy proceeding fell under § 1826).\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 11\\n\\n\\n Furthermore, as we noted in Mitchell, the limited legislative history of § 1826, while\\ninstructive, is of “minimal value.” Mitchell, 556 F.2d at 384. Given the plain language of the\\nstatute, were Thompson to be held in contempt for failing solely to sit for a debtor’s examination\\nand to testify about the location of his assets, § 1826 would limit his incarceration for civil\\ncontempt to eighteen months. See Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718,\\n1725 (2017) (“[I]t is never our job to rewrite a constitutionally valid statutory text under the\\nbanner of speculation about what Congress might have done had it faced a question that . . . it\\nnever faced.”); Bridewell v. Cincinnati Reds, 155 F.3d 828, 830 (6th Cir. 1998) (“[W]e c[an]not\\nlook to the legislative history to contravene the clear and unambiguous language of the statute.”).\\n\\n The government also argues that the requirement in Thompson’s plea agreement that he\\ntestify in a debtor’s examination “was only in service of the primary objective: ‘identifying and\\nrecovering assets.’” Appellee Br. at 28–29. Therefore, according to the government, to the\\nextent Thompson’s testimony was relevant to the identification and recovery of the assets,\\n§ 1826 is inapplicable. But as stated, the debtor’s examination amounts to testimonial conduct\\nthat would fall within § 1826 eighteen-month incarceration limitation. This is so without regard\\nto whether Thompson’s testimony would be necessary to assist the parties in recovering assets.\\n\\n As explained in further detail below, however, Thompson’s contempt was not predicated\\nonly on his failure to testify or answer questions; rather, because Thompson also failed to fulfill\\nthe non-testimonial requirements of his plea agreement, § 1826 does not limit Thompson’s\\nperiod of incarceration.\\n\\nB. Non-Testimonial Conduct\\n\\n As noted above, Thompson’s plea agreement required Thompson to “testify under oath at\\na proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s examination” and to answer “questions regarding the gold\\nstrike commemorative coins.” Crim. R. 14 at 2 (Page ID #49). This is not, however, the only\\nconduct Thompson was required to engage in under the plain language of the plea agreement\\nand, significantly, was not the only basis on which the district court held Thompson in contempt.\\nRather, Thompson’s plea agreement––and the district court’s November 2015 order requiring\\nThompson to abide by its terms––also explained that Thompson was required to “assist” the civil\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 12\\n\\n\\nplaintiffs “in identifying and recovering assets.” Id. at 2–3 (Page ID #49–50). Such a\\nrequirement to assist in “recovering assets” is broad: recovering assets could, and likely would,\\nrequire Thompson both to provide information regarding the location of assets and to undertake\\nvarious non-testimonial actions, such as signing a limited power of attorney to enable the parties\\nto review the contents of a trust and recover any assets located within the trust. See Crim. R. 108\\n(4/25/17 Status Order); Crim. R. 138 (11/27/17 Order Denying Mot. to Terminate Sanctions).3\\nBy requiring Thompson to “assist” the parties “in identifying and recovering assets,” the plea\\nagreement and the district court’s order explicitly left open the likelihood that Thompson’s mere\\ntestimony would be insufficient, particularly in “recovering” Thompson’s assets.\\n\\n Thompson counters that although the first sentence of paragraph 4(a) of the plea\\nagreement appears broad, the subsequent language indisputably limits what the parties meant by\\nthe term “assist.” However, the unambiguous language of the plea agreement does not support\\nThompson’s conclusion.4 While the agreement goes on to explain that “Defendant agrees to\\ntestify under oath at a proceeding, amounting to a debtor’s examination, to identify and recover\\nassets,” there is no suggestion in the agreement that the debtor’s examination is the only means\\nby which Thompson is expected (and indeed, required) to “assist” the parties “in identifying and\\nrecovering assets.” As noted above, the term “recover” clearly anticipates broader types of\\nactions than a debtor’s examination. Additionally, the fact that the plea agreement provides that,\\n“[a]fter [Thompson] answers questions in the debtor’s examination, a reasonable time will be\\n\\n 3Although Thompson does not address whether an order requiring him to sign a limited power of attorney\\nwould fall within § 1826’s limitations, we conclude such an action is clearly non-testimonial and thus outside the\\nscope of § 1826. The act of signing a limited power of attorney is a legal tool that does not, in and of itself, express\\nor contain any information. And unlike voice or handwriting exemplars, there is no informational value in the actual\\ndocument containing Thompson’s signature––it cannot be compared to other, similar documents, and although it\\nallows the parties to gain information by searching the contents of the trust, that information is not inherent to the\\ndocument bearing Thompson’s signature. Cf. Mitchell, 556 F.2d at 384; Palmer, 530 F.2d at 789 n.3. Thus,\\nalthough § 1826 enumerates various forms that “other information” may take, including “any book, paper,\\ndocument, record, recording or other material,” the plain language of § 1826 makes clear that it is the informational\\nvalue of those documents that designates them as “other information.” 28 U.S.C. § 1826.\\n 4Because we conclude that the terms of Thompson’s plea agreement are unambiguous, we need not\\nexamine whether the district court committed clear error in interpreting the facts underlying the agreement. See\\nUnited States v. Debreczeny, 69 F. App’x 702, 705–06 (6th Cir. 2003) (“If the terms of [a] plea agreement are\\nequivocal . . . , the district court has discretion to interpret its terms. ‘The content of a plea agreement and what the\\nparties agreed to is a question of fact for the district court that is reviewed for clear error.’” (quoting Lukse, 286 F.3d\\nat 909)).\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 13\\n\\n\\npermitted for a process amounting to civil discovery to verify answers and trace assets” and, if\\nthe government “is satisfied that all questions have [been] fully answered, it shall recommend to\\nthe Court that the civil contempt be deemed ‘cured,’” does not help Thompson. Similar to the\\nrequirement that Thompson sit for a debtor’s examination, this language does not indicate that\\nThompson will be required only to testify or provide “information.” Instead, it shows the\\nparties’ belief that, were Thompson to testify truthfully, the parties would be able successfully to\\n“verify [Thompson’s] answers and trace assets,” thus enabling both the identification and\\nrecovery of those assets. This provision does not implicitly or explicitly limit what “assist” in\\n“recovering assets” might entail. Finally, the plea agreement notes that “the identification of\\nproperty and assets shall proceed as a condition of Defendant’s cooperation under the terms of\\nthis Agreement.” Again, beyond reiterating Thompson’s responsibility to identify assets, a plain\\nreading of this statement does not limit what, precisely, Thompson will be required to do to assist\\nin recovering those assets. This statement merely specifies what one condition of the agreement\\nwould be––successfully identifying assets––rather than explicitly limiting Thompson’s\\nresponsibilities under the agreement.\\n\\n Along with encompassing non-testimonial conduct, the record evidence shows that\\nbefore the eighteen-month limitation under § 1826 became applicable, Thompson was, in fact, on\\nnotice that his contempt order included his failure to engage in non-testimonial conduct,\\nspecifically his failure to execute a limited power of attorney. During a debtor’s examination in\\nJanuary 2017, the civil parties attempted to have Thompson sign a limited power of attorney to\\npermit them to examine the contents of a trust Thompson owned to determine whether the trust\\ncontained the coins. Crim. R. 94 at 1–2 (1/16/17 Joint Status Report) (Page ID #859–60); Crim.\\nR. 99 at 9 (1/10/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #923). Thompson refused. Id. Following various\\norders and status conferences, in April 2017, the district court concluded that Thompson’s plea\\nagreement, “which requires Mr. Thompson ‘to assist the Parties in Case No. 06-CV-0292, and\\nany other party identified by the Court as having an interest, in identifying and recovering\\nassets,’ contemplates, among other things, exactly what the government seeks here: the signing\\nof a limited power of attorney that allows the government to probe the contents of the Belizean\\ntrust.” Crim. R. 108 at 3 (4/25/17 Status Order) (Page ID #990); see also Crim. R. 114 at 10\\n(4/21/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1026) (overruling Thompson’s objection to executing the\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 14\\n\\n\\npower of attorney). In the April 25, 2017 Status Order, the district court explicitly ordered\\nThompson to sign a limited power of attorney pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of his plea agreement\\nwithin twenty-eight days. Crim. R. 108 at 3 (Page ID #990). On May 23, 2017, the parties\\nsubmitted a joint status report explaining that Thompson had refused to execute the power of\\nattorney. Crim. R. 110 at 1 (Page ID #997). Thompson’s continued refusal was confirmed in\\ntwo later status hearings. See Crim. R. 127 at 4–5 (6/30/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1159–60);\\nCrim. R. 130 at 4 (8/18/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1195).\\n\\n Based on these records, the April 25, 2017 order––issued almost two months before the\\neighteen-month limitation under § 1826 became applicable––clearly put Thompson on notice\\nthat, in order to cure his contempt, Thompson not only would have to sit for a debtor’s\\nexamination and provide truthful testimony, but also would have to execute a limited power of\\nattorney to permit the parties to “probe” the contents of a Belizean trust. After all, Thompson\\nwas not held in contempt for only refusing to submit to the debtor’s examination; rather,\\nThompson was ordered to comply with all the terms of his plea agreement, including “assisting”\\nthe parties “in identifying and recovering assets.” See Crim. R. 67 at 73 (12/15/15 Contempt\\nHr’g Tr.) (Page ID #707) (“Mr. Thompson was in violation of the Court’s November 16, 2015,\\norder which simply required him to abide by the terms of his plea agreement, including\\nparagraph 4A which . . . stated that he would assist the parties in identifying and recovering the\\nassets . . . .”); R. 63 at 5 (12/16/15 Contempt Order) (Page ID #625) (“The Court will impose an\\nindefinite sentence of incarceration for civil contempt until Thompson complies with the Court’s\\norder to sit for the debtor’s examination and assist the Civil Litigants in identifying and\\nrecovering assets.”). Additionally, because Thompson was on notice that he was required to\\nengage in non-testimonial conduct to cure his contempt before his incarceration exceeded\\neighteen months, the fact that Thompson was also in contempt for failing to testify at a debtor’s\\nexamination––conduct which would fall under § 1826’s limitation––is immaterial. See\\nArmstrong, 470 F.3d at 110. Section 1826 thus does not provide Thompson relief.\\n\\n In summary, to the extent Thompson still refuses to comply with the district court’s order\\nto sign a limited power of attorney, § 1826 does not limit the length of Thompson’s\\nincarceration. Rather, the length Thompson’s incarceration is restricted only by the Due Process\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 15\\n\\n\\nClause and, if applicable, any changed circumstances which prohibit Thompson from curing his\\ncontempt. See Shillitani, 384 U.S. at 371 (“[T]he justification for coercive imprisonment as\\napplied to civil contempt depends upon the ability of the contemnor to comply with the court’s\\norder.”); Armstrong, 470 F.3d at 110–12 (examining whether the defendant’s confinement for\\ncivil contempt violated the Due Process Clause). Because Thompson has not presented any\\nargument under either theory, we affirm the district court’s order denying Thompson’s motion to\\nterminate his sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1826.\\n\\nC. District Court’s Statements During Status Hearings\\n\\n Although we determine that, because Thompson’s contempt currently includes his failure\\nto engage in non-testimonial conduct, § 1826 does not apply to him, one more issue warrants\\nfurther consideration, namely the district court’s evolving statements regarding Thompson’s\\ncontempt. Ultimately, we determine that this issue does not undermine our conclusion as to the\\napplicability of § 1826.\\n\\n Both in his appellate briefs and at oral argument, Thompson asserts that because the\\ndistrict court has framed his contempt in terms of his failure to testify and provide information,\\nThompson’s actions clearly fall within § 1826. See Appellant Br. at 19–21; Reply Br. at 3–5. It\\nis true that, when Thompson was initially held in contempt, the district court focused on\\nThompson’s refusal to answer questions posed to him during the debtor’s exam and noted that\\nThompson could cure his contempt if he provided truthful answers. See Crim. R. 67 at 69\\n(12/15/15 Contempt Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #703) (explaining that Thompson’s delays are always\\n“on the eve of each critical proceeding where we get to the pivotal question: Where is the\\ntreasure? Where are the assets? Where’s the loot?”); id. at 74 (Page ID #708) (“Once you\\nperform the act required by the Court, that is, agree to sit down and participate in the debtor’s\\nexamination, this term of incarceration will be lifted as you will have purged yourself of the\\ncontempt.”); id. at 78 (Page ID #712) (“[I]f you go in there and answer the questions directly and\\nhonestly and not evasively . . . then you can purge yourself of the contempt.”). The district court\\nreiterated these statements in later status hearings. See Crim. R. 115 at 20 (9/9/16 Status Hr’g\\nTr.) (Page ID #1070) (“We will reconvene this hearing on November the 9th to determine\\nwhether Mr. Thompson is ready to disclose the whereabouts of the gold.”); Crim. R. 116 at 4\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 16\\n\\n\\n(11/9/16 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1077) (“Mr. Thompson certainly has the ability to purge\\nhimself once he makes the decision . . . to disclose his knowledge of the whereabouts of the\\ngold.”). Were the district court to have explained Thompson’s contempt solely in terms of his\\nfailure to provide answers and testify, § 1826 would apply to him. See supra Part III.A. After\\nall, if a district court expressly (and consistently) limits the actions which a contemnor must\\nundertake in order to cure his contempt, then the contemnor cannot later be faulted for failing to\\ncure his contempt based on other conduct of which he had no notice.\\n\\n The problem for Thompson, however, is that the district court’s contempt order was not\\nlimited only to Thompson’s failure to attend a debtor’s examination and truthfully answer\\nquestions. Rather, as the district court explained at the contempt hearing and in the\\naccompanying written order, Thompson was held in contempt for failing to attend a debtor’s\\nexamination and otherwise perform the requirements of his plea agreement. See Crim. R. 67 at\\n73 (12/15/15 Contempt Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #707); R. 63 at 5 (12/16/15 Contempt Order) (Page\\nID #625). And as Thompson was well aware following the district court’s April 2017 hearing\\nand order, such contempt included his failure to sign a limited power of attorney.\\n\\n Furthermore, the district court’s statements that Thompson could cure his contempt by\\nsitting for a debtor’s examination and answering questions truthfully do not indicate that, in the\\nappropriate situation, Thompson would not also be required to engage in other, non-testimonial\\nconduct. Cf. Crim. R. 108 at 3 (4/25/17 Status Order) (Page ID #990) (requiring Thompson to\\nexecute a limited power of attorney). The district court’s statements are, instead, specific to the\\ncontext of the contempt hearing and status hearings and the factual issues then before the district\\ncourt. At the time the district court made these statements, Thompson’s only contemptuous\\nactions revolved around his failure to answer questions in good faith during a debtor’s\\nexamination; the concern regarding the limited power of attorney or the Belizean trust was not\\nyet squarely before the court. When that issue arose, the district court ordered Thompson to\\nfollow the terms of his plea agreement by executing the limited power of attorney and,\\nfurthermore, described Thompson’s contempt in terms of his refusal to execute the document.\\n\\f No. 17-4264 United States v. Thompson Page 17\\n\\n\\nSee Crim. R. 130 at 13 (8/18/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1204) (“Mr. Thompson can purge his\\ncontempt quite easily by signing the power of attorney and submitting to the debtor’s exam.”).5\\n\\n Finally, paragraph 4(a) of Thompson’s plea agreement explains that “the government\\nacknowledges that it is the Parties’ intention that any sanctions or consequences arising from\\nDefendant’s failure to cooperate in the identification and recovery of assets in Case No. 06-CV-\\n0292 be determined and imposed by this Court as part of the instant proceeding, and only by this\\nCourt as part of the instant proceeding.” Crim. R. 14 at 3 (Page ID #50). Thompson thus\\nexplicitly acknowledged and agreed to a situation in which, depending on Thompson’s failure to\\n“cooperate in the identification and recovery of assets,” the district court would be permitted to\\ndetermine which sanctions (such as civil contempt) would be appropriate. The district court did\\njust that when it ordered Thompson both to testify at a debtor’s examination and to execute a\\nlimited power of attorney in order to cure his civil contempt. Consequently, although the district\\ncourt’s directive to Thompson may have evolved based on the parties’ needs under the plea\\nagreement, this does not undermine our conclusion that Thompson’s sanctions fall outside the\\nscope of 28 U.S.C. § 1826.\\n\\n IV. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Thompson’s\\nmotion to terminate his civil-contempt sanctions.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 5During the April 21, 2017 status hearing in which the district court concluded that Thompson was required\\nto execute a limited power of attorney under his plea agreement, the district court again described Thompson’s\\ncontempt in terms of Thompson’s refusal to testify at the debtor’s examination. See Crim. R. 114 at 28 (Page ID\\n#1044) (“[H]e needs to be able to put himself in a position to purge himself of contempt by answering questions as\\nto the location of the gold, et cetera.”). However, context again limits the significance of the district court’s\\nstatement. During the April 2017 hearing, the district court ordered Thompson to execute the power of attorney,\\nreasoning it was required under his plea agreement. Id. at 10 (Page ID #1026). Thompson had not yet refused to\\ncomply with the district court’s order to sign the power of attorney, and any contempt Thompson faced was thus still\\nlimited to Thompson’s refusal to answer questions during the debtor’s examination. Notably, after Thompson\\nrefused to execute the limited power of attorney in May 2017, the district court broadened its discussions regarding\\nThompson’s contempt. See Crim. R. 127 at 15 (6/30/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1170) (asking whether\\nThompson was prepared “to comply with the plea agreement and purge himself of the contempt”); Crim. R. 130 at\\n13 (8/18/17 Status Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #1204) (noting that Thompson could purge his contempt “by signing the\\npower of attorney and submitting to the debtor’s exam” (emphasis added)).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2095,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4624322,"string":"4,624,322"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"SECRETARY OF LABOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMBERLINE SOUTH, LLC; Jim Payne, Defendants-Appellants."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Sec'y Labor v. Timberline S., LLC"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-29"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1763"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Sutton, White, Donald\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0108p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n SECRETARY OF LABOR, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-1763\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n TIMBERLINE SOUTH, LLC; JIM PAYNE, │\\n Defendants-Appellants. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.\\n No. 1:16-cv-11552—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: March 14, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 29, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUTTON, WHITE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Jeffrey S. Theuer, LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C.,\\nLansing, Michigan, for Appellants. Sarah J. Starrett, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF\\nLABOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey S. Theuer, LOOMIS, EWERT,\\nPARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C., Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants. Sarah J. Starrett,\\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.\\n\\n ______________________\\n\\n AMENDED OPINION\\n ______________________\\n\\n HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Defendant Timberline South, LLC (Timberline) is a timber-harvesting company that\\noperates solely in Michigan, but uses logging and harvesting equipment and trucks that were\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nmanufactured outside of Michigan. The Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) brought this action\\nagainst Timberline and its director, Jim Payne, alleging violations of the overtime and\\nrecordkeeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).\\n\\n The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, and awarded\\n$439,437.42 in unpaid overtime and an equal amount in liquidated damages. The district court\\nreasoned that Timberline was a covered enterprise under the FLSA because it “has employees\\nhandling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or\\nproduced for commerce by any person,” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(i), i.e., the logging and\\nharvesting equipment manufactured outside of Michigan. Part of the damages award included\\ntime employees spent commuting from home to work or for meal periods, which the district\\ncourt included in the overtime calculation after finding that Timberline had an established\\ncustom or practice of compensating its employees for such time.\\n\\n Defendants appeal, arguing that the district court erred in finding liability and awarding\\nunpaid overtime and liquidated damages. We affirm the district court’s liability determination.\\nHowever, because the district court erred in finding that ordinary commute time and bona fide\\nmeal periods qualify as compensable hours subject to the FLSA’s overtime requirements, we\\nvacate the award of damages and remand for further proceedings.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Timberline was formed in 2010 as a Michigan limited liability company. Payne is an\\nofficer of Timberline and directs all of its operations. Timberline removes raw timber from\\nforests, cuts the timber, and transports the timber to mills for processing into paper and other\\nproducts. Timberline maintains two to four worksites, each with approximately four equipment\\noperators who cut down trees, cut the timber into lengths, and transport the timber to a landing\\nsite. Timberline also employs six to eight truck drivers, who load the timber at the landing site\\nand transport it to the mills, as well as mechanics and an office manager. Timberline’s\\nequipment operators use heavy, specialized machinery, including harvesters and hydro-axes to\\ncut down trees and cut the trees into lengths, and forwarders and skidders to transport the timber\\nto the landing site or to load trucks. All of Timberline’s business activities occur in Michigan: it\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nharvests timber in Michigan; it transports timber to mills located only in Michigan; it entered\\ninto contracts for cutting timber in Michigan; and it purchased its trucks and heavy equipment\\nfrom Michigan sellers. Although purchased and used only in Michigan, Timberline’s trucks and\\nheavy equipment were manufactured outside of Michigan.\\n\\n Payne established Timberline’s compensation and recordkeeping practices. Timberline\\npaid its employees using a daily rate, an hourly rate, or a cord1 rate. Timberline recorded hours\\nworked for hourly employees but did not do so for most non-hourly employees, and did not pay\\nits employees an overtime rate for hours worked over 40 in a week.\\n\\n Timberline was founded after a previous company, Timberline Logging, Inc. (Timberline\\nLogging), went out of business. In February 2011, Payne instructed his office manager to email\\nMatthew Rooyakker, Timberline Logging’s accountant, regarding whether Timberline Logging\\nwas exempt from paying overtime “under FLSA in Tennessee.” (R. 18-12, PID 1674.)2 Payne\\nalso testified that he discussed FLSA coverage with his accountant on “a couple different\\noccasions” “awhile back,” “before the investigation” that led to this lawsuit. (R. 19-12, PID\\n2273.) According to Payne, Rooyakker told him that “we were exempt under agriculture” (id. at\\nPID 2274), although Rooyakker had not held himself out as knowledgeable about the FLSA, and\\nPayne did not believe that his truck drivers or office workers were agricultural employees.\\nPayne did not consult with an attorney.\\n\\n Defendants took the position in this lawsuit that the Motor Carrier Act exemption,\\n29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), exempts some of Timberline’s employees from FLSA coverage. In\\nresponse to the Secretary’s interrogatories about this exemption, Defendants stated that they\\nrelied upon the “FLSA and publications prepared by Plaintiff” in determining that that the Motor\\nCarrier Act exemption applied, but Payne did not recall which publications he relied on and was\\nnot able to explain why his drivers and their helpers were exempt if the drivers only drove\\nintrastate routes. (R. 18-4, PID 271-81.)\\n\\n\\n\\n 1A cord is a standard measurement of wood.\\n 2Timberline Logging performed work in Tennessee, but Timberline did not.\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n Rooyakker testified that the only time he provided advice regarding the FLSA was at a\\nmeeting with Payne on February 17, 2011. At that meeting, in response to Timberline Logging’s\\ninquiry, Rooyakker told Payne that it appeared that “you’re exempt” under the agricultural\\nexemption. (R. 18-13, PID 1702.) Rooyakker testified that he did not advise which of\\nTimberline Logging’s or Timberline’s employees were subject to the FLSA’s agricultural\\nexemption and never opined whether either entity’s employees in Michigan may also be exempt.\\n\\n Wage and Hour Investigator Jeffrey Wrona of the Department of Labor (DOL)\\ninvestigated Timberline for wage and recordkeeping violations for the time period of August 25,\\n2013 through August 20, 2015, later extended through March 20, 2017. After assessing unpaid\\novertime wages, the Secretary of Labor filed a complaint alleging that Defendants had violated\\nthe overtime and recordkeeping provisions of the FLSA, and sought an injunction, back wages,\\nand liquidated damages.\\n\\n The district court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment in part and\\ndenied Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, granted the Secretary’s motion to\\namend the complaint to include additional employees and FLSA violations that had occurred\\nduring 2016 and 2017, awarded liquidated damages, and ordered further briefing by the parties\\non the amount of backpay.\\n\\n After two rounds of supplemental briefing, the district court issued a final summary\\njudgment decision awarding $439,437.42 in backpay damages and an equal amount in liquidated\\ndamages. This appeal followed.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n This court reviews de novo a grant of summary judgment, viewing all evidence and\\ndrawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Pearce v.\\nChrysler Grp. LLC Pension Plan, 893 F.3d 339, 345 (6th Cir. 2018).3 Summary judgment is\\n\\n\\n 3The Secretary argues that we should review the district court’s decision to award liquidated damages for\\nan abuse of discretion, but in making that argument the Secretary relies on cases involving liquidated damages\\nawarded after a trial. Here, the district court decided the issue on summary judgment and found that it had no\\ndiscretion as a matter of law to decline to award or reduce the amount of liquidated damages. Hence, our review is\\nde novo. See Chao v. A-One Med. Servs., Inc., 346 F.3d 908, 920 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Although we generally review a\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nappropriate only where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is\\nentitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\\n\\n A. Enterprise Coverage and the Handling Clause\\n\\n The FLSA requires, among other things, that a qualifying enterprise pay certain\\nemployees overtime pay at one and one-half times their regular rate for each hour above\\n40 worked in a workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). At issue in this appeal is whether Timberline is\\n“an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” defined as\\n\\n an enterprise that--\\n (A)(i) has employees engaged in commerce4 or in the production of goods5 for\\n commerce, or that has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on\\n goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any\\n person; and\\n (ii) is an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is\\n not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that are\\n separately stated);\\n\\n29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).\\n\\n There is no dispute that Timberline is an “enterprise” under § 203(r)(1),6 qualifies as an\\n“employer” under § 203(d),7 and had an annual gross volume of sales in excess of $500,000 for\\neach relevant year, § 203(s)(1)(A)(ii). Nor did the Secretary argue that Timberline was a\\n\\ndistrict court’s decision on liquidated damages for abuse of discretion, we review the issue here, which was decided\\nbelow on summary judgment, de novo.” (internal citation omitted)).\\n 4‘“Commerce’ means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several\\nStates or between any State and any place outside thereof.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(b).\\n 5“‘Goods’ means goods (including ships and marine equipment), wares, products, commodities,\\nmerchandise, or articles or subjects of commerce of any character, or any part or ingredient thereof, but does not\\ninclude goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of the ultimate consumer thereof other than a\\nproducer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(i).\\n 6‘“Enterprise’ means the related activities performed (either through unified operation or common control)\\nby any person or persons for a common business purpose, and includes all such activities whether performed in one\\nor more establishments or by one or more corporate or other organizational units including departments of an\\nestablishment operated through leasing arrangements, but shall not include the related activities performed for such\\nenterprise by an independent contractor. . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 203(r)(1).\\n 7‘“Employer’ includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to\\nan employee and includes a public agency, but does not any labor organization (other than when acting as an\\nemployer) or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\ncovered enterprise because it had “employees engaged in commerce or in the production of\\ngoods for commerce.” § 203(s)(1)(A)(i). Rather, the parties disagree about whether Timberline\\n“has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been\\nmoved in or produced for commerce by any person,” id., often referred to as the “handling\\nclause.”\\n\\n As originally enacted, the FLSA covered certain employees but did not encompass\\nenterprise-wide coverage. That concept was added in 1961. See Pub. L. No. 87-30, § 2, 75 Stat.\\n65, 65-66 (1961). “After the [1961] amendment, if an employer had two or more workers\\nengaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce, FLSA coverage extended to all\\nof the enterprise’s employees.” Polycarpe v. E&S Landscaping Serv., Inc., 616 F.3d 1217, 1220\\n(11th Cir. 2010) (citing Dunlop v. Indus. Am. Corp., 516 F.2d 498, 500-01 (5th Cir. 1975)).\\nIncluded in the 1961 amendment was the addition of the handling clause. In 1974, Congress\\nclarified that the handling clause was an independent basis for enterprise coverage8 and added\\n“or materials” to that clause. See id. at 1220-21. “Materials” is not defined in the statute.\\n“Goods” is, however, and contains what is often called the “ultimate-consumer exception,”\\nexcluding from the definition “goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of\\nthe ultimate consumer thereof other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.”\\n29 U.S.C. § 203(i). The district court held that Timberline is a covered enterprise under the\\nhandling clause because Timberline’s employees’ use of logging and harvesting equipment\\nmanufactured outside of Michigan constitutes “handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods\\nor materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person.”\\n§ 203(s)(1)(A)(i).\\n\\n Defendants argue that Timberline is not a covered enterprise because the only thing\\nTimberline’s employees “handle” is timber, which never crosses state lines; and that even if they\\n“handled” the logging and harvesting equipment, that equipment does not qualify as “materials,”\\nbut rather qualifies as “goods,” and that Timberline is the ultimate consumer of those goods such\\n\\n 8Between the 1961 and 1974 amendments, coverage extended to enterprises with “employees engaged in\\ncommerce or in the production of goods for commerce, including employees handling, selling, or otherwise working\\non goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s) (1970) (emphasis added). The\\n1974 amendment replaced “including” with “or.”\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nthat the FLSA does not apply. (Appellants’ Br. at 11-14, 16-18.) Further, Defendants argue that\\nfinding enterprise coverage in this case “would effectively erase the commerce requirement\\nnecessary for FLSA jurisdiction” because “[e]very business uses computers made overseas, or\\npencils and pens made out of state, or copiers, paper, or telephones made in other jurisdictions.”\\n(Appellants’ Br. at 14.)\\n\\n We begin our analysis of the “handling clause” with the language of the statute.\\nBrilliance Audio, Inc. v. Haights Cross Commc’ns, Inc., 474 F.3d 365, 371 (6th Cir. 2007). “If\\nthe language of the statute is clear, then the inquiry is complete, and the court should look no\\nfurther. Only if the statute is ‘inescapably ambiguous’ should a court look to other persuasive\\nauthority in an attempt to discern legislative meaning.” Id. (citations omitted).\\n\\n The plain language of the statute contradicts Defendants’ arguments that Timberline is\\nnot a covered enterprise because “[t]he only good or material that Timberline handles, sells, or\\notherwise works on within the meaning of the FLSA, is the timber itself,” and because\\nTimberline’s employees “did not place th[e logging and harvesting] equipment in commerce\\nthemselves.” (Appellants’ Br. at 12.) We find no merit to these arguments because it is not\\nrelevant under the statute that Timberline employees did not place the logging and harvesting\\nequipment in commerce themselves; the plain language of the statute provides coverage where\\nemployees handle, sell, or otherwise work on “goods or materials that have been moved in or\\nproduced for commerce by any person.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis added). “The\\ntense is in the past. There is no requirement of continuity in the present.” Polycarpe, 616 F.3d\\nat 1221 (quoting Brennan v. Greene’s Propane Gas Serv., Inc., 479 F.2d 1027, 1030 (5th Cir.\\n1973)). Further, the statute makes clear that it applies when any person—not just the employees\\nof the enterprise—has moved or produced the handled goods or materials in commerce. Because\\nthe logging and harvesting equipment had previously been moved in and produced for commerce\\nby others prior to being handled by Timberline employees, this part of the statute is satisfied.\\n\\n Less clear is whether the logging and harvesting equipment constitute “goods” or\\n“materials” and whether Timberline is the ultimate consumer of the logging and harvesting\\nequipment such that if the logging and harvesting equipment qualify as goods and not materials,\\nthe ultimate-consumer exception operates to exclude Timberline from coverage. “[P]recisely\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\ndetermining the correct ordinary meaning of ‘materials’ for the FLSA is challenging because the\\nFLSA’s statutory definition of ‘goods’ is so expansive, ostensibly including some items that\\ncould also fall under the ordinary meaning of ‘materials.’” Id. at 1223. Thus, we may look to\\nother sources to determine the meaning, including “interpretations by other courts, legislative\\nhistory, policy rationales, and the context in which the statute was passed.” Brilliance Audio,\\n474 F.3d at 371-72.\\n\\n As an initial matter, we have previously explained that the FLSA “was enacted by\\nCongress to be a broadly remedial and humanitarian statute. The Act was designed to correct\\n‘labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for\\nhealth, efficiency, and general well-being of workers . . .’” Donovan v. Brandel, 736 F.2d 1114,\\n1116 (6th Cir. 1984) (alteration in original) (quoting Dunlop v. Carriage Carpet Co., 548 F.2d\\n139, 143 (6th Cir. 1977)). “[T]he FLSA, as a statute designed to protect individual rights, . . .\\n‘must not be interpreted or applied in a narrow, grudging manner.’” Herman v. Fabri-Centers of\\nAm., Inc., 308 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Tenn. Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda\\nLocal No. 123, 321 U.S. 590, 597 (1944)).\\n\\n Several of our sister circuits have addressed similar situations and have suggested that the\\naddition of “or materials” to the handling clause essentially rendered the ultimate-consumer\\nexception obsolete. In Brock v. Hamad, the Fourth Circuit held that the defendant’s rental\\noperation was a covered enterprise where the defendant stipulated that he “had bought goods that\\nhad been moved in interstate commerce and that these goods had been used in the course of his\\nemployees’ employment.” 867 F.2d 804, 807-08 (4th Cir. 1989). Rejecting the defendant’s\\nargument that the rental operation was the ultimate consumer of these goods so that coverage did\\nnot extend to it, the Fourth Circuit explained: “Hamad’s argument, however, erroneously isolates\\nSection 203(i)[‘s definition of ‘goods’] from the remainder of the FLSA. When Section 203(i) is\\nread in context with Section 203(s), which covers ‘employees handling, selling, or otherwise\\nworking on goods or materials,’ it seems that defendant’s argument must fail.” Id. at 807; see\\nalso id. at 808 (“[I]t is well established that local business activities fall within the FLSA when\\nan enterprise employs workers who handle goods or materials that have moved or have been\\nproduced in interstate commerce.”); Dole v. Odd Fellows Home Endowment Bd., 912 F.2d 689,\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n695 (4th Cir. 1990) (“Appellants’ contention that the Home was in some sense the ‘ultimate\\nconsumer’ of the goods and materials that moved in interstate commerce does not preclude\\napplication of the Act.” (citing Hamad, 867 F.2d at 807-08)).\\n\\n Similarly, the Third Circuit held that a company “engaged in the business of collecting\\ngarbage, trash, and scrap metal” was a covered enterprise. Marshall v. Brunner, 668 F.2d 748,\\n750 (3d Cir. 1982). The defendant argued that its use of “motor vehicles, gas, oil, and other\\nmanufactured goods” did not result in FLSA coverage because it was the ultimate consumer of\\nthose goods. Id. at 751. The Third Circuit rejected that argument, relying heavily on the\\nlegislative history in concluding that the company was a covered enterprise. Id. at 751-52 (citing\\nS. Rep. No. 93–690, at 17 (1974), which explains that the amendment “adds the words ‘or\\nmaterials’ after the word ‘goods’ to make clear the Congressional intent to include within this\\nadditional basis of coverage the handling of goods consumed in the employer’s business, as, e.g.,\\nthe soap used by a laundry”).\\n\\n The Tenth Circuit reached the same conclusion regarding a real-estate developer whose\\nemployees used construction machinery for “removing and thinning trees, clearing brush,\\ngrading and contouring the land for streets and drainage, installing culverts, pouring concrete for\\ncurbs and laying asphalt.” Donovan v. Pointon, 717 F.2d 1320, 1322 (10th Cir. 1983). Although\\nthe defendant had acquired the machinery from within the same state in which the equipment\\nwas used, the Tenth Circuit explained that fact was\\n\\n irrelevant to a determination of whether [the defendant] is a covered\\n employer. The critical issue is whether the goods or materials handled by [the\\n defendant] and his employees had moved in interstate commerce, and, in this\\n regard, it is undisputed that they did. “Using” goods or materials which have\\n moved in interstate commerce constitutes a “handling” within the meaning of 29\\n U.S.C. § 203(s).\\n\\nId. at 1322-23 (internal citations omitted); see also Donovan v. Scoles, 652 F.2d 16, 18-19 (9th\\nCir. 1981) (gas station engaged in purely intrastate activities is a covered enterprise because the\\nFLSA “imposes no requirement that the goods have a present involvement in interstate\\ncommerce when they are handled or sold. Instead it broadens coverage to include all employees\\nwithin the stream of commerce of such goods, even if their own participation remains purely\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nintrastate.”); Brennan v. Iowa, 494 F.2d 100, 101, 103 n.5, 104 (8th Cir. 1974) (holding that\\nhospitals and schools were subject to the FLSA because “many employees handle articles which\\nhave moved in interstate commerce,” including drugs, cleaning supplies, food, and laundry\\nsupplies); Indus. Am. Corp., 516 F.2d at 501-02, 502 n.8 (explaining that the 1974 “amendment\\nleaves the definition of goods intact but circumvents it by a broader definition of ‘enterprise\\nengaged in commerce,’” which had the effect of expanding the FLSA “to every enterprise in the\\nnation doing” the requisite volume of business); Archie v. Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc., 997 F. Supp.\\n504, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (Sotomayor, J.) (explaining that the 1974 amendments to the FLSA\\nresulted in “virtually every enterprise” doing the requisite volume of business being covered by\\nthe FLSA, and holding that sanitations crews’ use of “bags, brooms, shovels, pails, scrapers . . .\\nradios, books . . . [and] flashlights” that had moved in interstate commerce resulted in FLSA\\nenterprise coverage (alterations in original) (citations omitted)).\\n\\n In recent years, the Eleventh Circuit addressed this issue at length, extracting a definition\\nof “materials” from the FLSA by considering the plain language of the statute, legislative\\nhistory, and the DOL’s interpretation. Polycarpe, 616 F.3d at 1221-27. In its view, courts could\\nnot properly assume that Congress intended to overrule the ultimate-consumer exception\\ncontained in the definition of “goods” with the addition of “materials” to the statute. Doing so, it\\nsaid, would violate a basic principle of statutory interpretation by not giving effect to all the\\nwords in the statute. Id. at 1222-23.\\n\\n The court thus considered two ordinary definitions of “materials” potentially applicable\\nin the FLSA context and adopted one for purposes of the handling clause:\\n\\n One definition views “materials” as the “apparatus (as tools or other articles)\\n necessary for doing or making something.” A second definition defines\\n “materials” as “the basic matter (as metal, wood, plastic, fiber) from which the\\n whole or the greater part of something physical (as a machine, tool, building,\\n fabric) is made.” Looking only to the word’s ordinary meaning, it seems that\\n “materials” as used in the FLSA could potentially include items used in\\n performing actions or services (e.g. describing pen and paper as “writing\\n materials”), items that serve as a component of something else, or both.\\n But precisely determining the correct ordinary meaning of “materials” for the\\n FLSA is challenging because the FLSA’s statutory definition of “goods” is so\\n expansive, ostensibly including some items that could also fall under the ordinary\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n meaning of “materials.” Much of the FLSA’s definition of “goods” is comprised,\\n it seems, of synonyms for items sold by a business: “goods . . . , wares, products,\\n commodities, merchandise, or articles . . . .” But Congress’s expressed definition\\n for “goods” also includes “or any part or ingredient thereof.” The plain text of\\n this last phrase indicates to us that, of the two ordinary meanings that we\\n identified for “materials,” the second one—the one involving constituent parts—\\n overlaps with part of the statutory definition of “goods.”\\n We must interpret the FLSA in a way that Congress’s 1974 addition of the words\\n “or materials” does not impliedly repeal the unchanged “goods” definition or that\\n definition’s ultimate-consumer exception. Therefore, we believe that the most\\n accurate view of Congress’s intent for the interplay between “goods” and\\n “materials” in the FLSA—one that does not impliedly repeal some of the statutory\\n definition of “goods”—is to read “materials” in the FLSA this way: “materials” in\\n the FLSA means tools or other articles necessary for doing or making\\n something. We believe that this interpretation is true to the ordinary meaning of\\n “materials” and avoids conflict with the statutory “goods” definition.\\n\\nId. at 1223-24 (alteration in original) (internal citations and footnote omitted). The court also\\nexplained that to be considered “materials,” an item “must have a significant connection with the\\nemployer’s commercial activity; the business may not just somehow internally and incidentally\\nconsume the item.” Id. at 1226. “This requirement,” the court reasoned, “is compelled because\\nthe statute covers not all ‘goods’ and ‘materials,’ but only ‘goods’ and ‘materials’ that a\\ncompany is engaged in ‘handling, selling, or otherwise working on.’” Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C.\\n§ 203(s)(1)(A)(i)).\\n\\n Polycarpe cautioned that the same items could be goods in one case, materials in another,\\nand neither goods nor materials in still another case, depending on the use of the item in the\\ncontext of each case. “Where a catering business uses the china plates at a client’s banquet, the\\nplates count as part of the ‘materials’ necessary for serving a catered meal. But, where a\\ndepartment store sells the same china plates as stand-alone items, the plates count as ‘goods’ for\\nthat retailer.” Id. Those same plates hung as decorations on the lobby wall of an accounting\\nfirm, however, constitute neither goods nor materials “because the plates have no significant\\nconnection to the business’s accounting work.” Id.\\n\\n We find the reasoning of Polycarpe persuasive because it gives effect to “materials”\\nwithout totally overlapping with the statutory definition of “goods” and thus displacing the\\nultimate-consumer exception contained within that definition. See Walker v. Bain, 257 F.3d 660,\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n667 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Every word in the statute is presumed to have meaning, and we must give\\neffect all the words to avoid an interpretation which would render words superfluous or\\nredundant.” (citations omitted)); see also Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 524 (1987)\\n(“[R]epeals by implication are not favored and will not be found unless an intent to repeal is\\nclear and manifest.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).\\n\\n Applying the definition of “materials” from Polycarpe, the logging and harvesting\\nequipment used by Timberline’s employees plainly constitute “materials” because the equipment\\nis necessary to cut down trees and transport the timber, which in turn have a significant\\nconnection to Timberline’s commercial activities of harvesting and selling timber.\\n\\n Defendants disagree with Polycarpe’s analysis, arguing that it erroneously “relied upon a\\nsimple alternate definition” of “materials” rather than other definitions that would be “more\\nconsistent with the language of the FLSA,” such as “constituent parts of a whole, or elements of\\nsomething else,” or the “material components that make up” “the thing being produced by the\\nenterprise.” (Reply at 1, 3-4.) However, Defendants’ proffered definition of “materials” has not\\nbeen adopted by other circuits; and because “goods” includes in its definition “any part or\\ningredient [of goods],” 29 U.S.C. § 203(i), Defendants’ definition would render both terms\\nredundant.\\n\\n Defendants also argue that Polycarpe’s definition of “materials” is limited to items\\nprovided by an employer to its customers or “incorporated into products as part of the defendant\\nemployer’s services, such as paint used by a construction company, shutter blades for a window\\nshutter manufacturer, [or] burglar alarms installed by a security company.” (Appellants’ Br. at\\n13.) Defendants read Polycarpe too narrowly. Polycarpe remanded all but one of the cases9 to\\nthe district court to determine whether the items at issue were moved in or produced for interstate\\ncommerce and, if so, whether those items constitute “goods” or “materials.” 616 F.3d at 1229.\\nSome of the items at issue in Polycarpe are analogous to the logging and harvesting equipment\\nin this case, such as lawnmowers, edgers, and trucks used by a landscaping company. Id. at\\n1228. On remand, the district court held that the landscaping company was a covered enterprise\\n\\n 9Polycarpe affirmed one judgment in one case in favor of the defendants because the evidence at trial did\\nnot establish that the business met the volume requirement of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(ii). 616 F.3d at 1229.\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nbecause the trucks it used were “materials” rather than “goods.” Polycarpe v. E & S\\nLandscaping Serv., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2011).\\n\\n Finally, under these facts, we need not extensively address Defendants’ argument that\\nfinding FLSA coverage in this case would “effectively erase the commerce requirement\\nnecessary for FLSA jurisdiction” because “[e]very business uses computers made overseas, or\\npencils and pens made out of state.” (Appellants’ Br. at 14.) As an initial matter, the parties\\npoint to no case where the DOL has attempted to enforce the statute in this manner. Further, the\\ncourt in Polycarpe was apparently concerned with expanding coverage in this way and offered\\nreasonable bases to reject any attempt to do so. First, the court noted that the terms, “handling,\\nselling, or otherwise working on” “denote a connection to the employer’s . . . commercial\\nactivity,” such that mere internal and incidental consumption of an item would not suffice to\\nqualify. 616 F.3d at 1226. Second, it explained that DOL regulations instruct that employees\\nmust handle or work on the goods or materials “regularly and recurrently” for enterprise\\ncoverage to attach. Id. at 1226 n.7 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 779.238). Regardless, coverage here is\\nnot premised on employees’ incidental use of office items; rather, it is premised on employees’\\nregular and recurrent use of logging and harvesting equipment that is used to carry out the\\ncompany’s commercial activity of harvesting timber.\\n\\n Accordingly, the district court correctly found that Timberline is a covered enterprise\\nunder the FLSA’s handling clause.\\n\\n B. Motor Carrier Act Exemption\\n\\n Next, Defendants challenge the district court’s determination that Timberline’s truck\\ndrivers and their helpers are not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions pursuant to\\n29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), which exempts from coverage “any employee with respect to whom the\\nSecretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service\\npursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of Title 49.” The Motor Carrier Act (MCA) provides\\nthat the “Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for” “(1) qualifications and\\nmaximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor\\ncarrier”; and “(2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\nequipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.” 49 U.S.C.\\n§ 31502(b). “Motor carrier” is defined as a “person who provides motor vehicle transportation\\nfor compensation.” 49 U.S.C. § 13102(14). Defendants do not contend that Timberline is a\\nmotor carrier. Rather, Defendants argue that Timberline is a “motor private carrier,” defined as a\\nperson who transports property or goods in interstate commerce. 49 U.S.C. § 13102(15).\\nConsistent with these statutory definitions, this court has previously explained that “[t]he MCA\\n. . . gives the Secretary of Transportation ‘the authority to regulate the hours of an employee\\n(1) who works for a private motor carrier that provides transportation in interstate commerce and\\n(2) whose work activities affect the safety of operation of that motor carrier.’” Vaughn v.\\nWatkins Motor Lines, Inc., 291 F.3d 900, 904 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Troutt v. Stavola Bros.,\\nInc., 107 F.3d 1104, 1106-07 (4th Cir. 1997)).\\n\\n The employer bears the burden of proving that it qualifies for a claimed exemption.\\nMartin v. Ind. Mich. Power Co., 381 F.3d 574, 578 (6th Cir. 2004). We give FLSA exemptions\\na fair, rather than a narrow, reading. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134, 1142\\n(2018).\\n\\n Defendants argue that some of Timberline’s employees are exempt from coverage\\nbecause Timberline’s trucks are operated under U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)\\nregistration numbers and its drivers maintain commercial driver’s licenses, which they say are\\nsufficient bases to find that the MCA exemption applies. In support of this argument,\\nDefendants cite Finn v. Dean Transportation, Inc., 53 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (M.D. Tenn. 2014). In\\nFinn, the district court held that a company was a motor private carrier where its drivers\\ntransported ten percent of its goods in interstate commerce. Id. at 1056-57. In response to the\\nemployee’s argument that the MCA exemption should not apply because the DOT had never\\nexercised its authority to audit the company or to conduct roadside stops, the district court stated\\nthat “Finn’s concession that the DOT had ‘some regulatory authority’ over his work as a driver\\nis, standing alone, dispositive of this issue.” Id. at 1057. The district court then noted that the\\ndriver “admits that he was required to hold a CDL, that DTI has a DOT registration number, that\\nDTI was subject to DOT audit, that its vehicles could be stopped for inspection at any time, and\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\nthat DTI drivers were required to undergo a yearly physical (for which DTI paid).” Id. at 1057-\\n58.\\n\\n Defendants read too much into Finn. Finn was exempt because his employer met the\\ndefinition of a motor private carrier and was therefore subject to DOT regulation. Id. at 1055-56.\\nWe have previously rejected an argument that the mere issuance of a certificate by the Interstate\\nCommerce Commission (which regulated motor carriers prior to the DOT) was sufficient to\\nbring employees within the MCA exemption when those employees drove only intrastate routes.\\nSee Baird v. Wagoner Transp. Co., 425 F.2d 407, 413 (6th Cir. 1970); see also Mazzarella v.\\nFast Rig Support, LLC, 823 F.3d 786, 792 (3d Cir. 2016) (“The DOT certificate merely\\nauthorizes Defendants to engage in interstate transportation. It provides no information about\\nwhether Defendants’ drivers actually drove across state lines or otherwise engaged in interstate\\ncommerce.”).\\n\\n The dispositive inquiry here is not whether Timberline’s employees held commercial\\ndriver’s licenses or whether its trucks had DOT registration numbers; rather, the dispositive\\ninquiry is whether Timberline’s drivers transport goods in interstate commerce, thus rendering\\nTimberline a motor private carrier. 49 U.S.C. § 13102(15); Vaughn, 291 F.3d at 904. Courts\\nhave consistently interpreted this to mean that drivers must travel or transport the goods across\\nstate lines, or transport the goods in a “‘practical continuity of movement’ across State lines from\\nthe point of origin to the point of departure.” 29 C.F.R. 782.7(b)(1) (quoting Walling v.\\nJacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 568 (1943)); see also Baird, 425 F.2d at 413; Goldberg v.\\nFaber Indus., Inc., 291 F.2d 232, 234 (7th Cir. 1961). Here, it is undisputed that Timberline’s\\ntruck drivers did not cross state lines.\\n\\n Defendants nevertheless argue that Timberline’s drivers transport goods in “a practical\\ncontinuity of movement” in interstate commerce because its timber “is an ingredient in the goods\\nmanufactured by the mills to which it is delivered.” (Appellants’ Br. at 22.) Defendants,\\nhowever, presented no evidence that their timber was eventually shipped in interstate commerce\\nby the mills. To the contrary, Payne’s affidavit stated that Timberline has “no control over what\\nis done with the timber delivered to the mills, nor do we know the eventual destination or use of\\nthat timber.” (R. 19-3, PID 2080.) Further, even if the timber was used by the mills to make\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\nother products, such as paper, and then shipped across state lines, the fact that the timber was\\naltered before crossing state lines weighs against finding the MCA exemption applicable. See\\nMazzarella, 823 F.3d at 791-93 (citing Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars, Ltd., 589 F.3d 895, 897\\n(7th Cir. 2009)) (in considering whether drivers who transported water to hydraulic fracking sites\\nwithin Pennsylvania were subject to MCA exemption, “whether the water is altered during the\\nfracking process” would be relevant in determining whether there was a practical continuity of\\nmovement in interstate commerce; MCA exemption did not apply because the defendant\\nproduced no evidence concerning this or other relevant matters).\\n\\n Absent any evidence that Timberline’s drivers crossed state lines or transported goods as\\npart of a practical continuity of movement in interstate commerce, the district court correctly\\nfound that none of Timberline’s employees was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements\\nunder the MCA exemption.\\n\\n C. Damages\\n\\n 1. Briefing Before the District Court\\n\\n Three rounds of briefing occurred before the district court granted summary judgment on\\ndamages. In the Secretary’s original summary judgment brief, Investigator Wrona estimated that\\nTimberline owed unpaid overtime of $468,595.80 for 50 employees. Wrona explained that he\\nprimarily relied on Timberline’s payroll records to calculate unpaid overtime. However, because\\nTimberline lacked hours-worked records for some employees, Wrona had to use other methods\\nto reconstruct the hours those employees worked. Defendants argued in part that in extrapolating\\nhours worked from the employees’ pay records, the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.\\n§ 254(a), required a reduction in the number of hours for the time employees spent on meals and\\nin traveling to and from their homes to their workplaces—hours for which the employees were\\npaid, but which do not count as work. After the original summary judgment briefing, the district\\ncourt rejected Defendants’ argument that the Portal-to-Portal Act required such a reduction,\\nfinding that Defendants had an established custom or practice of compensating for such time.\\nThe district court also ordered supplemental briefing to clarify inconsistencies in the record and\\nto provide requested information in a specific format.\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\n In the Secretary’s first supplemental brief, he calculated revised unpaid overtime to be\\n$454,684.73 for the 50 employees. The Secretary explained that 43 out of the 50 employees\\nwere paid an hourly rate for their entire employment, and because Defendants kept records of\\ntheir hours worked, “[c]omputing overtime for these employees is a simple case of arithmetic\\nbased upon Defendants’ own records.” (R. 38, PID 3725-26.) The Secretary explained that he\\ncomputed back wages for the remaining seven employees without complete hours-worked\\nrecords by: “(1) averaging the number of hours similarly situated employees worked per week or\\n(2) averaging the number of hours individual employees worked each workweek based upon\\ntime records previously kept for each employee prior to Defendants changing the employee\\ncompensation to non-hourly and ceas[ing] keeping the required records.” (Id. at PID 3726.) The\\nSecretary also presented voluminous data showing how he arrived at the calculated unpaid\\novertime. Defendants argued in response that the calculations performed by the Secretary for the\\nnon-hourly employees lacked credibility because the calculations guessed at hours worked and\\npay rate, contained errors, and led to absurd results because Defendants presented evidence that\\ntheir employees were paid significantly more than the industry average.\\n\\n The district court noted certain discrepancies that required additional briefing but also\\nrejected many of Defendants’ arguments that the data was inflated and that industry-aggregate\\ndata should be used instead. It reasoned that “Defendants simply reassert their overarching\\nargument that their compensation scheme resulted in compensation that far exceeded industry\\naverages and, therefore, that they should be excused from their obligations under the FLSA\\novertime provisions. They cite no authority for this proposition.” (R. 43, PID 4187.) The\\ndistrict court also noted that Defendants were critiquing the Secretary’s “methodology largely by\\ncherry picking particular workweeks with unusually high gross wages or unusually low gross\\nwages” and were essentially attacking “the statistical concept of an average.” (Id. at PID 4188.)\\n\\n In the Secretary’s second supplemental brief regarding damages, the Secretary addressed\\nthe district court’s identified concerns and recalculated unpaid overtime to $445,533.49, which\\nreflected a change of unpaid overtime for three non-hourly employees and one hourly employee.\\nDefendants responded by arguing that the Secretary’s third attempt still contained errors, which\\nthey said evidenced a total lack of credibility in the Secretary’s calculations, and thus the district\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\ncourt should award no damages or use the industry-aggregate data to determine unpaid overtime.\\nThey also reasserted their argument that the award should be reduced due to compensation for\\ncommute and meal time.\\n\\n The district court made reductions to the Secretary’s claimed unpaid overtime to address\\nerrors identified by Defendants, but otherwise rejected Defendants’ arguments. The district court\\nawarded damages for unpaid overtime of $439,437.42, and an equal amount in liquidated\\ndamages.\\n\\n 2. Arguments on Appeal\\n\\n On appeal, Defendants appear to make two legal arguments. First, Defendants argue that\\nthe district court erred in not applying the Portal-to-Portal Act to reduce overtime owed by the\\ntime the employees spent during meals and traveling to and from work. Second, Defendants\\nargue that because each of the Secretary’s calculations of overtime contained errors and\\ninconsistences, the Secretary failed to meet his burden to prove damages, and the district court\\nshould have entered an award of no damages or ordered that industry-aggregate data be used to\\narrive at a just and reasonable damages amount.\\n\\n 3. Analysis\\n\\n The Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 254, provides in part:\\n\\n (a) Activities not compensable\\n Except as provided in subsection (b), no employer shall be subject to any liability\\n or punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 . . . on account of the\\n failure of such employer to pay an employee minimum wages, or to pay an\\n employee overtime compensation, for or on account of any of the following\\n activities of such employee . . .\\n\\n (1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of\\n performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is\\n employed to perform, and\\n (2) activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal\\n activity or activities,\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\n which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such\\n employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at\\n which he ceases, such principal activity or activities. . . .\\n\\n (b) Compensability by contract or custom\\n Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) which relieve an employer from\\n liability and punishment with respect to any activity, the employer shall not be so\\n relieved if such activity is compensable by . . .\\n ....\\n (2) a custom or practice in effect, at the time of such activity, at the\\n establishment or other place where such employee is employed, covering\\n such activity, not inconsistent with a written or nonwritten contract, in\\n effect at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or\\n collective-bargaining representative and his employer.\\n (c) Restriction on activities compensable under contract or custom\\n For the purposes of subsection (b), an activity shall be considered as compensable\\n under such contract provision or such custom or practice only when it is engaged\\n in during the portion of the day with respect to which it is so made compensable.\\n\\n (d) Determination of time employed with respect to activities\\n In the application of the minimum wage and overtime compensation provisions of\\n the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, of the Walsh-Healey Act, or\\n of the Bacon-Davis Act, in determining the time for which an employer employs\\n an employee with respect to walking, riding, traveling, or other preliminary or\\n postliminary activities described in subsection (a) of this section, there shall be\\n counted all that time, but only that time, during which the employee engages in\\n any such activity which is compensable within the meaning of subsections (b) and\\n (c) of this section.\\n\\n The district court held after the initial summary judgment briefing that Defendants had a\\ncustom or practice of paying for non-compensable time such as travel and meal time and\\nreasoned that this time must be included in determining hours worked and overtime owed\\npursuant to the Portal-to-Portal Act. After the initial summary judgment briefing, Defendants\\nsubmitted affidavits from five employees, which they argued showed “some, but not necessarily\\nall, employees who did not agree or understand that these hours would be included as hours\\nworked or for overtime.” (R. 41, PID 4115.) These affidavits stated that the employee “was\\npaid for driving to and from the worksite, but [he] did not have an agreement or understanding\\nthat this time would be included in any calculation of overtime.” (See, e.g., R. 41-12, PID\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\n4167.)10 The affidavits also stated that the employee “took a half-hour lunch when [he] could fit\\nit in” and that the employee included “drive time and lunch time in total hours.” (Id.)\\n\\n Although the plain language of the Portal-to-Portal Act suggests that home-to-work\\ncommutes are deemed compensable if the employer has a custom or practice of compensating for\\nsuch work, 29 C.F.R. § 785.34 explains that “ordinary travel from home to work (see § 785.35)\\nneed not be counted as hours worked even if the employer agrees to pay for it.” And, 29 C.F.R.\\n§ 785.35 says plainly that “[n]ormal travel from home to work is not worktime.” The reason is\\nthat the FLSA only requires overtime compensation for “actual work or employment,” Tenn.\\nCoal, Iron & R. Co., 321 U.S. at 597, “[a]nd even where there is a contract, custom, or practice\\nto pay for time spent in such a ‘preliminary’ or ‘postliminary’ activity, section 4(d) of the Portal\\nAct does not make such time hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act, if it would not\\nbe so counted under the latter Act alone,” 29 C.F.R. § 790.7; see also id. § 790.5 (“But where,\\napart from the Portal Act, time spent in such an activity would not be time worked within the\\nmeaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, although made compensable by contract, custom, or\\npractice, such compensability will not make it time worked under section 4(d) of the Portal\\nAct.”)11 “The general rule . . . is and always has been that the FLSA does not treat ordinary\\nhome-to-job-site travel as compensable.” Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352, 360 (2d\\nCir. 2011). The same is true of “bona fide meal periods.” 29 C.F.R. § 785.19; see also Ruffin v.\\nMotorCity Casino, 775 F.3d 807, 811-15 (6th Cir. 2015) (examining whether meal periods were\\ncompensable under the FLSA as “work”).\\n\\n Although it does not appear that any other circuit court has addressed this issue, district\\ncourts have held that ordinary home-to-work and work-to-home commute time does not qualify\\nas “work” under the FLSA even if the employer has paid for such time, and therefore that time is\\n\\n\\n 10Other employees submitted declarations indicating that their timecards did not include commute time and\\nthat they usually did not take a bona fide meal break.\\n 11A different regulation suggests that where there is an agreement between the parties to treat non-\\ncompensable time, such as bona fide meal time, as “work” that is subject to the overtime requirements of the FLSA,\\nthat time would be included as “work” in the calculation of unpaid overtime. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.320. However,\\nthe district court did not rely on any agreement between the parties, and neither party briefs this issue on appeal.\\nRather, the district court focused only on whether Defendants had a custom or practice of paying for commute and\\nlunch time, not whether there was an agreement to treat the time as hours worked under the FLSA.\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\nnot subject to overtime requirements. See Pietrzycki v. Heights Tower Serv., Inc., 290 F. Supp.\\n3d 822, 835 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (“In other words, a custom, practice, or contract of paying for\\nordinary home-to-work commuting cannot make that travel time into hours worked if it would\\nnot have been characterized as such before Congress passed the PPA.”); Shearer v. Edger\\nAssocs. Inc., No. 8:14-CV-2689-T-27JSS, 2015 WL 9274928, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2015)\\n(“As discussed, Defendants’ policy to compensate Shearer for her commute time from home to\\nthe first work site and from the last work site home does not make those hours ‘worked’ for\\npurposes of the FLSA.”); Gilmer v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dist., No. C 08-05186 CW,\\n2010 WL 289299, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2010) (“Thus, the exceptions to the Portal Act do not\\nrender compensable time that would not otherwise have been compensable under the FLSA. . . .\\nAccordingly, Plaintiffs’ start-end travel time, even if they were paid for it, would not be included\\nin computing their hours worked for overtime purposes if it were considered travel from work to\\nhome.”); Johnson v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, 554 F. Supp. 2d 693, 707 (E.D. Tex. 2007)\\n(“A review of the applicable regulations and case law on this issue leads the court to conclude\\nthat, because the travel at issue in this case was ordinary home-to-work travel, such travel did not\\nqualify as hours worked, even if RGIS had a custom or practice of paying for it.”).\\n\\n The regulations and district court cases applying them are persuasive and a reasonable\\ninterpretation of the statutes. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944) (“[R]ulings,\\ninterpretations and opinions of the Administrator under this Act, while not controlling upon the\\ncourts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to\\nwhich courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance. The weight of such a judgment in a\\nparticular case will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its\\nreasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give\\nit power to persuade, if lacking power to control.”). Accordingly, we adopt their interpretation.\\n\\n Here, the district court determined that ordinary commute time and meal time that was\\nincluded in Defendants’ records qualified as compensable hours under the FLSA and, therefore,\\nthe court did not determine, and the Secretary did not calculate, the amount of ordinary commute\\ntime and bona fide meal time included in the records used to calculate unpaid overtime. This\\nwas error. Any ordinary commute and bona fide meal time that can be established must not be\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\nincluded in determining how many hours of overtime each employee worked, although\\nDefendants may not use the amounts paid for those otherwise non-compensable work periods as\\nan offset against the amounts owed. See Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp., 370 F.3d 901, 913\\n(9th Cir. 2004); Reich v. Lucas Enterprises, Inc., 2 F.3d 1151 (6th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we\\nvacate the grant of summary judgment on damages and remand for further proceedings.12\\n\\n Given our disposition of this issue, we need not address Defendants’ remaining\\narguments on damages. However, in the interest of judicial economy, we note that the district\\ncourt was correct in rejecting Defendants’ argument that “industry aggregate data” should be\\nused to determine unpaid overtime rather than Defendants’ payroll records. Defendants’\\nproposed calculation method focuses not on the employees’ actual rate, see 29 U.S.C. § 207\\n(requiring employers to pay an employee “not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at\\nwhich he is employed” for hours worked over 40 in a workweek (emphasis added)), but rather\\nthe rate at which other employees at different companies with potentially vastly different job\\nduties and experience are paid. Because there is no support for applying this methodology, the\\ndistrict court correctly rejected this argument at the summary-judgment stage. See Acosta v. Off\\nDuty Police Servs., Inc., 915 F.3d 1050, 1065 (6th Cir. 2019) (“The reasonableness of the DOL’s\\nproposed calculation depends in part on the availability of other, more reasonable alternatives to\\nthat proposal. . . . Although the calculation adopted by the district court may be imprecise, it is\\nthe best method available in light of ODPS’s failure to maintain accurate and complete\\nrecords.”).\\n\\n D. Liquidated Damages\\n\\n The FLSA provides that “[a]ny employer who violates [the FLSA’s minimum wage or\\novertime provisions] shall be liable to the employee or employees affected” in the amount of the\\nunpaid overtime compensation “and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.”\\n\\n\\n 12The Secretary argued to the district court that even if Defendants’ employees’ travel time and lunch\\nbreaks were included in the recorded hours, Defendants did not meet their burden to negate the reasonableness of the\\nSecretary’s damages computations, that there was an agreement to treat these hours as hours worked, and that\\nDefendants did not establish that the travel time did not constitute work time or that their employees received bona\\nfide meal breaks. The district court did not address any of these arguments, and the Secretary does not argue these\\nalternative bases for affirmance on appeal. Accordingly, we leave these issues to the district court.\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\n29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Despite the mandatory wording of that section, Congress has authorized\\ndistrict courts to reduce or decline to award liquidated damages under the FLSA “if the employer\\nshows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in\\ngood faith and that [the employer] had reasonable grounds for believing that [the] act or\\nomission was not a violation of the” FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 260. “This burden on the employer is\\nsubstantial and requires ‘proof that [the employer’s] failure to obey the statute was both in good\\nfaith and predicated upon such reasonable grounds that it would be unfair to impose upon [it]\\nmore than a compensatory verdict.’” Elwell v. Univ. Hosps. Home Care Servs., 276 F.3d 832,\\n840 (6th Cir. 2002) (alterations in original) (quoting McClanahan v. Mathews, 440 F.2d 320, 322\\n(6th Cir. 1971)).\\n\\n “To prove that it acted in good faith, an employer ‘must show that [it] took affirmative\\nsteps to ascertain the Act’s requirements, but nonetheless violated its provisions.’” Martin v.\\nInd. Mich. Power Co., 381 F.3d 574, 584–85 (6th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting\\nMartin v. Cooper Elec. Supply Co., 940 F.2d 896, 908 (3d. Cir. 1991)). Establishing that the\\nemployer did not willfully misclassify an employee is insufficient to show good faith. Id. (citing\\nElwell, 276 F.3d at 841 n.5). Rather, “[t]he employer has an affirmative duty to ascertain and\\nmeet the FLSA’s requirements, and an employer who negligently misclassifies an employee as\\nexempt is not acting in good faith.” Id. (citing Elwell, 276 F.3d at 841 n.5)\\n\\n Defendants argue that because Payne reasonably and in good faith relied on his\\naccountant’s advice that logging companies are exempt from the overtime provisions of the\\nFLSA, the district court erred in concluding that it had no discretion to decline to award or to\\nreduce the liquidated damages. Defendants further argue that Timberline’s pay structure\\nresulting in higher-than-average compensation for its employees makes an award of liquidated\\ndamages particularly unjust.\\n\\n Defendants have not presented sufficient evidence to meet their substantial burden to\\nprove both good faith and reasonable grounds for the incorrect classification. As to the drivers,\\nshop workers, and office workers, Payne himself testified that he knew these employees were not\\nagricultural workers. Although Payne attempted to justify exempting his drivers and shop\\nworkers under the MCA exemption, Payne never sought advice for this decision or took any\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\nother active steps to inform himself regarding this determination. Further, he acknowledged that\\nhis drivers never crossed state lines, and he was not able to explain any reasonable grounds he\\nmay have had for determining that the MCA exemption applied to purely intrastate drivers.\\nThus, Defendants have not met their substantial burden to prove both good faith and reasonable\\ngrounds for the incorrect classification of Timberline’s drivers, shop workers, and office\\nworkers.\\n\\n Defendants’ employees performing harvesting and logging duties present a closer\\nquestion. Taking Payne’s testimony as true, he talked to Rooyakker on several occasions about\\nwhether the agricultural exemption applied. Although caselaw usually cites discussions with\\nattorneys or government officials as evidence of good faith, see, e.g., Elwell, 276 F.3d at 841\\n(“Nor has University suggested that it was relying on the expertise or opinion of any other person\\nor entity with knowledge of the FLSA regulations, including its attorney or the Department of\\nLabor.”); Featsent v. City of Youngstown, 70 F.3d 900, 906-07 (6th Cir. 1995); Steele v. Leasing\\nEnterprises, Ltd., 826 F.3d 237, 246-47 (5th Cir. 2016), some cases have extended this rationale\\nto accountants, see Copantitla v. Fiskardo Estiatorio, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d 253, 316-17\\n(S.D.N.Y. 2011). However, several undisputed facts weigh against finding that Defendants\\ncould meet their burden here. First, Payne knew that Rooyakker’s advice was flawed or\\nincomplete, at least with respect to truck drivers and office workers. Second, Payne never\\ndiscussed any of his employees’ duties with Rooyakker such that Payne could reasonably believe\\nthat Rooyakker was advising that specific employees were exempt. And third, Rooyakker did\\nnot hold himself out as an expert in FLSA matters, and indeed never provided anyone else with\\nadvice on such matters.\\n\\n Further, Defendants do not attempt to explain on appeal how a determination that any of\\ntheir employees fell under the agricultural exemption was reasonable. The district court\\nsummarily rejected that the agricultural exemption applied; Defendants do not raise this issue on\\nappeal; and Defendants’ briefing regarding liquidated damages focuses primarily on the MCA\\nexemption. Under these circumstances, Payne’s general discussions with Rooyakker are\\ninsufficient as a matter of law for Defendants to meet their heavy burden to prove both good\\nfaith and reasonable grounds for the incorrect classification. See Doty v. Elias, 733 F.2d 720,\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 25\\n\\n\\n726 (10th Cir. 1984) (finding that advice of an accountant that compensation scheme was legal\\neight to ten years prior to trial was insufficient to meet employer’s burden where the employer\\n“never sought an opinion from an attorney or the relevant government agency regarding the\\nlegality of” the compensation scheme and did not read government literature regarding wage and\\nhour laws).\\n\\n Finally, as the district court explained, Defendants’ argument that they compensated their\\nemployees above the industry average is irrelevant to whether they met their burden to establish\\ngood faith and reasonable grounds for the determination that Timberline’s employees were\\nexempt from overtime coverage. If they had established both of those prongs, the district court\\ncould consider the overall compensation in the exercise of its discretion in awarding liquidated\\ndamages. But having failed to meet their burden, this argument is misplaced.\\n\\n Accordingly, the district court correctly held that it had no discretion to award liquidated\\ndamages in an amount less than the amount of unpaid overtime compensation. See 29 U.S.C.\\n§ 216(b). However, because the amount of unpaid overtime compensation owed may change\\nafter further proceedings, we vacate the amount awarded for liquidated damages and remand for\\nrecalculation after further proceedings.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n For the reasons stated, we affirm the grant of summary judgment as to liability, including\\non the issue of liquidated damages, vacate the award of damages, and remand for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4401575/\", \"author_raw\": \"HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"SUTTON"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"WHITE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"DONALD"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624322/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: SECRETARY OF LABOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMBERLINE SOUTH, LLC; Jim Payne, Defendants-Appellants.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-29\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0108p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n SECRETARY OF LABOR, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n > No. 18-1763\n v. │\n │\n │\n TIMBERLINE SOUTH, LLC; JIM PAYNE, │\n Defendants-Appellants. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.\n No. 1:16-cv-11552—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.\n\n Argued: March 14, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 29, 2019\n\n Before: SUTTON, WHITE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Jeffrey S. Theuer, LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C.,\nLansing, Michigan, for Appellants. Sarah J. Starrett, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF\nLABOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey S. Theuer, LOOMIS, EWERT,\nPARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C., Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants. Sarah J. Starrett,\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.\n\n ______________________\n\n AMENDED OPINION\n ______________________\n\n HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge.\n\n Defendant Timberline South, LLC (Timberline) is a timber-harvesting company that\noperates solely in Michigan, but uses logging and harvesting equipment and trucks that were\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 2\n\n\nmanufactured outside of Michigan. The Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) brought this action\nagainst Timberline and its director, Jim Payne, alleging violations of the overtime and\nrecordkeeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).\n\n The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, and awarded\n$439,437.42 in unpaid overtime and an equal amount in liquidated damages. The district court\nreasoned that Timberline was a covered enterprise under the FLSA because it “has employees\nhandling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or\nproduced for commerce by any person,” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(i), i.e., the logging and\nharvesting equipment manufactured outside of Michigan. Part of the damages award included\ntime employees spent commuting from home to work or for meal periods, which the district\ncourt included in the overtime calculation after finding that Timberline had an established\ncustom or practice of compensating its employees for such time.\n\n Defendants appeal, arguing that the district court erred in finding liability and awarding\nunpaid overtime and liquidated damages. We affirm the district court’s liability determination.\nHowever, because the district court erred in finding that ordinary commute time and bona fide\nmeal periods qualify as compensable hours subject to the FLSA’s overtime requirements, we\nvacate the award of damages and remand for further proceedings.\n\n I.\n\n Timberline was formed in 2010 as a Michigan limited liability company. Payne is an\nofficer of Timberline and directs all of its operations. Timberline removes raw timber from\nforests, cuts the timber, and transports the timber to mills for processing into paper and other\nproducts. Timberline maintains two to four worksites, each with approximately four equipment\noperators who cut down trees, cut the timber into lengths, and transport the timber to a landing\nsite. Timberline also employs six to eight truck drivers, who load the timber at the landing site\nand transport it to the mills, as well as mechanics and an office manager. Timberline’s\nequipment operators use heavy, specialized machinery, including harvesters and hydro-axes to\ncut down trees and cut the trees into lengths, and forwarders and skidders to transport the timber\nto the landing site or to load trucks. All of Timberline’s business activities occur in Michigan: it\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 3\n\n\nharvests timber in Michigan; it transports timber to mills located only in Michigan; it entered\ninto contracts for cutting timber in Michigan; and it purchased its trucks and heavy equipment\nfrom Michigan sellers. Although purchased and used only in Michigan, Timberline’s trucks and\nheavy equipment were manufactured outside of Michigan.\n\n Payne established Timberline’s compensation and recordkeeping practices. Timberline\npaid its employees using a daily rate, an hourly rate, or a cord1 rate. Timberline recorded hours\nworked for hourly employees but did not do so for most non-hourly employees, and did not pay\nits employees an overtime rate for hours worked over 40 in a week.\n\n Timberline was founded after a previous company, Timberline Logging, Inc. (Timberline\nLogging), went out of business. In February 2011, Payne instructed his office manager to email\nMatthew Rooyakker, Timberline Logging’s accountant, regarding whether Timberline Logging\nwas exempt from paying overtime “under FLSA in Tennessee.” (R. 18-12, PID 1674.)2 Payne\nalso testified that he discussed FLSA coverage with his accountant on “a couple different\noccasions” “awhile back,” “before the investigation” that led to this lawsuit. (R. 19-12, PID\n2273.) According to Payne, Rooyakker told him that “we were exempt under agriculture” (id. at\nPID 2274), although Rooyakker had not held himself out as knowledgeable about the FLSA, and\nPayne did not believe that his truck drivers or office workers were agricultural employees.\nPayne did not consult with an attorney.\n\n Defendants took the position in this lawsuit that the Motor Carrier Act exemption,\n29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), exempts some of Timberline’s employees from FLSA coverage. In\nresponse to the Secretary’s interrogatories about this exemption, Defendants stated that they\nrelied upon the “FLSA and publications prepared by Plaintiff” in determining that that the Motor\nCarrier Act exemption applied, but Payne did not recall which publications he relied on and was\nnot able to explain why his drivers and their helpers were exempt if the drivers only drove\nintrastate routes. (R. 18-4, PID 271-81.)\n\n\n\n 1A cord is a standard measurement of wood.\n 2Timberline Logging performed work in Tennessee, but Timberline did not.\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 4\n\n\n Rooyakker testified that the only time he provided advice regarding the FLSA was at a\nmeeting with Payne on February 17, 2011. At that meeting, in response to Timberline Logging’s\ninquiry, Rooyakker told Payne that it appeared that “you’re exempt” under the agricultural\nexemption. (R. 18-13, PID 1702.) Rooyakker testified that he did not advise which of\nTimberline Logging’s or Timberline’s employees were subject to the FLSA’s agricultural\nexemption and never opined whether either entity’s employees in Michigan may also be exempt.\n\n Wage and Hour Investigator Jeffrey Wrona of the Department of Labor (DOL)\ninvestigated Timberline for wage and recordkeeping violations for the time period of August 25,\n2013 through August 20, 2015, later extended through March 20, 2017. After assessing unpaid\novertime wages, the Secretary of Labor filed a complaint alleging that Defendants had violated\nthe overtime and recordkeeping provisions of the FLSA, and sought an injunction, back wages,\nand liquidated damages.\n\n The district court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment in part and\ndenied Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, granted the Secretary’s motion to\namend the complaint to include additional employees and FLSA violations that had occurred\nduring 2016 and 2017, awarded liquidated damages, and ordered further briefing by the parties\non the amount of backpay.\n\n After two rounds of supplemental briefing, the district court issued a final summary\njudgment decision awarding $439,437.42 in backpay damages and an equal amount in liquidated\ndamages. This appeal followed.\n\n II.\n\n This court reviews de novo a grant of summary judgment, viewing all evidence and\ndrawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Pearce v.\nChrysler Grp. LLC Pension Plan, 893 F.3d 339, 345 (6th Cir. 2018).3 Summary judgment is\n\n\n 3The Secretary argues that we should review the district court’s decision to award liquidated damages for\nan abuse of discretion, but in making that argument the Secretary relies on cases involving liquidated damages\nawarded after a trial. Here, the district court decided the issue on summary judgment and found that it had no\ndiscretion as a matter of law to decline to award or reduce the amount of liquidated damages. Hence, our review is\nde novo. See Chao v. A-One Med. Servs., Inc., 346 F.3d 908, 920 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Although we generally review a\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 5\n\n\nappropriate only where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is\nentitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\n\n A. Enterprise Coverage and the Handling Clause\n\n The FLSA requires, among other things, that a qualifying enterprise pay certain\nemployees overtime pay at one and one-half times their regular rate for each hour above\n40 worked in a workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). At issue in this appeal is whether Timberline is\n“an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” defined as\n\n an enterprise that--\n (A)(i) has employees engaged in commerce4 or in the production of goods5 for\n commerce, or that has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on\n goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any\n person; and\n (ii) is an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is\n not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that are\n separately stated);\n\n29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).\n\n There is no dispute that Timberline is an “enterprise” under § 203(r)(1),6 qualifies as an\n“employer” under § 203(d),7 and had an annual gross volume of sales in excess of $500,000 for\neach relevant year, § 203(s)(1)(A)(ii). Nor did the Secretary argue that Timberline was a\n\ndistrict court’s decision on liquidated damages for abuse of discretion, we review the issue here, which was decided\nbelow on summary judgment, de novo.” (internal citation omitted)).\n 4‘“Commerce’ means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several\nStates or between any State and any place outside thereof.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(b).\n 5“‘Goods’ means goods (including ships and marine equipment), wares, products, commodities,\nmerchandise, or articles or subjects of commerce of any character, or any part or ingredient thereof, but does not\ninclude goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of the ultimate consumer thereof other than a\nproducer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(i).\n 6‘“Enterprise’ means the related activities performed (either through unified operation or common control)\nby any person or persons for a common business purpose, and includes all such activities whether performed in one\nor more establishments or by one or more corporate or other organizational units including departments of an\nestablishment operated through leasing arrangements, but shall not include the related activities performed for such\nenterprise by an independent contractor. . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 203(r)(1).\n 7‘“Employer’ includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to\nan employee and includes a public agency, but does not any labor organization (other than when acting as an\nemployer) or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 6\n\n\ncovered enterprise because it had “employees engaged in commerce or in the production of\ngoods for commerce.” § 203(s)(1)(A)(i). Rather, the parties disagree about whether Timberline\n“has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been\nmoved in or produced for commerce by any person,” id., often referred to as the “handling\nclause.”\n\n As originally enacted, the FLSA covered certain employees but did not encompass\nenterprise-wide coverage. That concept was added in 1961. See Pub. L. No. 87-30, § 2, 75 Stat.\n65, 65-66 (1961). “After the [1961] amendment, if an employer had two or more workers\nengaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce, FLSA coverage extended to all\nof the enterprise’s employees.” Polycarpe v. E&S Landscaping Serv., Inc., 616 F.3d 1217, 1220\n(11th Cir. 2010) (citing Dunlop v. Indus. Am. Corp., 516 F.2d 498, 500-01 (5th Cir. 1975)).\nIncluded in the 1961 amendment was the addition of the handling clause. In 1974, Congress\nclarified that the handling clause was an independent basis for enterprise coverage8 and added\n“or materials” to that clause. See id. at 1220-21. “Materials” is not defined in the statute.\n“Goods” is, however, and contains what is often called the “ultimate-consumer exception,”\nexcluding from the definition “goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of\nthe ultimate consumer thereof other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.”\n29 U.S.C. § 203(i). The district court held that Timberline is a covered enterprise under the\nhandling clause because Timberline’s employees’ use of logging and harvesting equipment\nmanufactured outside of Michigan constitutes “handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods\nor materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person.”\n§ 203(s)(1)(A)(i).\n\n Defendants argue that Timberline is not a covered enterprise because the only thing\nTimberline’s employees “handle” is timber, which never crosses state lines; and that even if they\n“handled” the logging and harvesting equipment, that equipment does not qualify as “materials,”\nbut rather qualifies as “goods,” and that Timberline is the ultimate consumer of those goods such\n\n 8Between the 1961 and 1974 amendments, coverage extended to enterprises with “employees engaged in\ncommerce or in the production of goods for commerce, including employees handling, selling, or otherwise working\non goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s) (1970) (emphasis added). The\n1974 amendment replaced “including” with “or.”\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 7\n\n\nthat the FLSA does not apply. (Appellants’ Br. at 11-14, 16-18.) Further, Defendants argue that\nfinding enterprise coverage in this case “would effectively erase the commerce requirement\nnecessary for FLSA jurisdiction” because “[e]very business uses computers made overseas, or\npencils and pens made out of state, or copiers, paper, or telephones made in other jurisdictions.”\n(Appellants’ Br. at 14.)\n\n We begin our analysis of the “handling clause” with the language of the statute.\nBrilliance Audio, Inc. v. Haights Cross Commc’ns, Inc., 474 F.3d 365, 371 (6th Cir. 2007). “If\nthe language of the statute is clear, then the inquiry is complete, and the court should look no\nfurther. Only if the statute is ‘inescapably ambiguous’ should a court look to other persuasive\nauthority in an attempt to discern legislative meaning.” Id. (citations omitted).\n\n The plain language of the statute contradicts Defendants’ arguments that Timberline is\nnot a covered enterprise because “[t]he only good or material that Timberline handles, sells, or\notherwise works on within the meaning of the FLSA, is the timber itself,” and because\nTimberline’s employees “did not place th[e logging and harvesting] equipment in commerce\nthemselves.” (Appellants’ Br. at 12.) We find no merit to these arguments because it is not\nrelevant under the statute that Timberline employees did not place the logging and harvesting\nequipment in commerce themselves; the plain language of the statute provides coverage where\nemployees handle, sell, or otherwise work on “goods or materials that have been moved in or\nproduced for commerce by any person.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis added). “The\ntense is in the past. There is no requirement of continuity in the present.” Polycarpe, 616 F.3d\nat 1221 (quoting Brennan v. Greene’s Propane Gas Serv., Inc., 479 F.2d 1027, 1030 (5th Cir.\n1973)). Further, the statute makes clear that it applies when any person—not just the employees\nof the enterprise—has moved or produced the handled goods or materials in commerce. Because\nthe logging and harvesting equipment had previously been moved in and produced for commerce\nby others prior to being handled by Timberline employees, this part of the statute is satisfied.\n\n Less clear is whether the logging and harvesting equipment constitute “goods” or\n“materials” and whether Timberline is the ultimate consumer of the logging and harvesting\nequipment such that if the logging and harvesting equipment qualify as goods and not materials,\nthe ultimate-consumer exception operates to exclude Timberline from coverage. “[P]recisely\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 8\n\n\ndetermining the correct ordinary meaning of ‘materials’ for the FLSA is challenging because the\nFLSA’s statutory definition of ‘goods’ is so expansive, ostensibly including some items that\ncould also fall under the ordinary meaning of ‘materials.’” Id. at 1223. Thus, we may look to\nother sources to determine the meaning, including “interpretations by other courts, legislative\nhistory, policy rationales, and the context in which the statute was passed.” Brilliance Audio,\n474 F.3d at 371-72.\n\n As an initial matter, we have previously explained that the FLSA “was enacted by\nCongress to be a broadly remedial and humanitarian statute. The Act was designed to correct\n‘labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for\nhealth, efficiency, and general well-being of workers . . .’” Donovan v. Brandel, 736 F.2d 1114,\n1116 (6th Cir. 1984) (alteration in original) (quoting Dunlop v. Carriage Carpet Co., 548 F.2d\n139, 143 (6th Cir. 1977)). “[T]he FLSA, as a statute designed to protect individual rights, . . .\n‘must not be interpreted or applied in a narrow, grudging manner.’” Herman v. Fabri-Centers of\nAm., Inc., 308 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Tenn. Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda\nLocal No. 123, 321 U.S. 590, 597 (1944)).\n\n Several of our sister circuits have addressed similar situations and have suggested that the\naddition of “or materials” to the handling clause essentially rendered the ultimate-consumer\nexception obsolete. In Brock v. Hamad, the Fourth Circuit held that the defendant’s rental\noperation was a covered enterprise where the defendant stipulated that he “had bought goods that\nhad been moved in interstate commerce and that these goods had been used in the course of his\nemployees’ employment.” 867 F.2d 804, 807-08 (4th Cir. 1989). Rejecting the defendant’s\nargument that the rental operation was the ultimate consumer of these goods so that coverage did\nnot extend to it, the Fourth Circuit explained: “Hamad’s argument, however, erroneously isolates\nSection 203(i)[‘s definition of ‘goods’] from the remainder of the FLSA. When Section 203(i) is\nread in context with Section 203(s), which covers ‘employees handling, selling, or otherwise\nworking on goods or materials,’ it seems that defendant’s argument must fail.” Id. at 807; see\nalso id. at 808 (“[I]t is well established that local business activities fall within the FLSA when\nan enterprise employs workers who handle goods or materials that have moved or have been\nproduced in interstate commerce.”); Dole v. Odd Fellows Home Endowment Bd., 912 F.2d 689,\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 9\n\n\n695 (4th Cir. 1990) (“Appellants’ contention that the Home was in some sense the ‘ultimate\nconsumer’ of the goods and materials that moved in interstate commerce does not preclude\napplication of the Act.” (citing Hamad, 867 F.2d at 807-08)).\n\n Similarly, the Third Circuit held that a company “engaged in the business of collecting\ngarbage, trash, and scrap metal” was a covered enterprise. Marshall v. Brunner, 668 F.2d 748,\n750 (3d Cir. 1982). The defendant argued that its use of “motor vehicles, gas, oil, and other\nmanufactured goods” did not result in FLSA coverage because it was the ultimate consumer of\nthose goods. Id. at 751. The Third Circuit rejected that argument, relying heavily on the\nlegislative history in concluding that the company was a covered enterprise. Id. at 751-52 (citing\nS. Rep. No. 93–690, at 17 (1974), which explains that the amendment “adds the words ‘or\nmaterials’ after the word ‘goods’ to make clear the Congressional intent to include within this\nadditional basis of coverage the handling of goods consumed in the employer’s business, as, e.g.,\nthe soap used by a laundry”).\n\n The Tenth Circuit reached the same conclusion regarding a real-estate developer whose\nemployees used construction machinery for “removing and thinning trees, clearing brush,\ngrading and contouring the land for streets and drainage, installing culverts, pouring concrete for\ncurbs and laying asphalt.” Donovan v. Pointon, 717 F.2d 1320, 1322 (10th Cir. 1983). Although\nthe defendant had acquired the machinery from within the same state in which the equipment\nwas used, the Tenth Circuit explained that fact was\n\n irrelevant to a determination of whether [the defendant] is a covered\n employer. The critical issue is whether the goods or materials handled by [the\n defendant] and his employees had moved in interstate commerce, and, in this\n regard, it is undisputed that they did. “Using” goods or materials which have\n moved in interstate commerce constitutes a “handling” within the meaning of 29\n U.S.C. § 203(s).\n\nId. at 1322-23 (internal citations omitted); see also Donovan v. Scoles, 652 F.2d 16, 18-19 (9th\nCir. 1981) (gas station engaged in purely intrastate activities is a covered enterprise because the\nFLSA “imposes no requirement that the goods have a present involvement in interstate\ncommerce when they are handled or sold. Instead it broadens coverage to include all employees\nwithin the stream of commerce of such goods, even if their own participation remains purely\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 10\n\n\nintrastate.”); Brennan v. Iowa, 494 F.2d 100, 101, 103 n.5, 104 (8th Cir. 1974) (holding that\nhospitals and schools were subject to the FLSA because “many employees handle articles which\nhave moved in interstate commerce,” including drugs, cleaning supplies, food, and laundry\nsupplies); Indus. Am. Corp., 516 F.2d at 501-02, 502 n.8 (explaining that the 1974 “amendment\nleaves the definition of goods intact but circumvents it by a broader definition of ‘enterprise\nengaged in commerce,’” which had the effect of expanding the FLSA “to every enterprise in the\nnation doing” the requisite volume of business); Archie v. Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc., 997 F. Supp.\n504, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (Sotomayor, J.) (explaining that the 1974 amendments to the FLSA\nresulted in “virtually every enterprise” doing the requisite volume of business being covered by\nthe FLSA, and holding that sanitations crews’ use of “bags, brooms, shovels, pails, scrapers . . .\nradios, books . . . [and] flashlights” that had moved in interstate commerce resulted in FLSA\nenterprise coverage (alterations in original) (citations omitted)).\n\n In recent years, the Eleventh Circuit addressed this issue at length, extracting a definition\nof “materials” from the FLSA by considering the plain language of the statute, legislative\nhistory, and the DOL’s interpretation. Polycarpe, 616 F.3d at 1221-27. In its view, courts could\nnot properly assume that Congress intended to overrule the ultimate-consumer exception\ncontained in the definition of “goods” with the addition of “materials” to the statute. Doing so, it\nsaid, would violate a basic principle of statutory interpretation by not giving effect to all the\nwords in the statute. Id. at 1222-23.\n\n The court thus considered two ordinary definitions of “materials” potentially applicable\nin the FLSA context and adopted one for purposes of the handling clause:\n\n One definition views “materials” as the “apparatus (as tools or other articles)\n necessary for doing or making something.” A second definition defines\n “materials” as “the basic matter (as metal, wood, plastic, fiber) from which the\n whole or the greater part of something physical (as a machine, tool, building,\n fabric) is made.” Looking only to the word’s ordinary meaning, it seems that\n “materials” as used in the FLSA could potentially include items used in\n performing actions or services (e.g. describing pen and paper as “writing\n materials”), items that serve as a component of something else, or both.\n But precisely determining the correct ordinary meaning of “materials” for the\n FLSA is challenging because the FLSA’s statutory definition of “goods” is so\n expansive, ostensibly including some items that could also fall under the ordinary\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 11\n\n\n meaning of “materials.” Much of the FLSA’s definition of “goods” is comprised,\n it seems, of synonyms for items sold by a business: “goods . . . , wares, products,\n commodities, merchandise, or articles . . . .” But Congress’s expressed definition\n for “goods” also includes “or any part or ingredient thereof.” The plain text of\n this last phrase indicates to us that, of the two ordinary meanings that we\n identified for “materials,” the second one—the one involving constituent parts—\n overlaps with part of the statutory definition of “goods.”\n We must interpret the FLSA in a way that Congress’s 1974 addition of the words\n “or materials” does not impliedly repeal the unchanged “goods” definition or that\n definition’s ultimate-consumer exception. Therefore, we believe that the most\n accurate view of Congress’s intent for the interplay between “goods” and\n “materials” in the FLSA—one that does not impliedly repeal some of the statutory\n definition of “goods”—is to read “materials” in the FLSA this way: “materials” in\n the FLSA means tools or other articles necessary for doing or making\n something. We believe that this interpretation is true to the ordinary meaning of\n “materials” and avoids conflict with the statutory “goods” definition.\n\nId. at 1223-24 (alteration in original) (internal citations and footnote omitted). The court also\nexplained that to be considered “materials,” an item “must have a significant connection with the\nemployer’s commercial activity; the business may not just somehow internally and incidentally\nconsume the item.” Id. at 1226. “This requirement,” the court reasoned, “is compelled because\nthe statute covers not all ‘goods’ and ‘materials,’ but only ‘goods’ and ‘materials’ that a\ncompany is engaged in ‘handling, selling, or otherwise working on.’” Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C.\n§ 203(s)(1)(A)(i)).\n\n Polycarpe cautioned that the same items could be goods in one case, materials in another,\nand neither goods nor materials in still another case, depending on the use of the item in the\ncontext of each case. “Where a catering business uses the china plates at a client’s banquet, the\nplates count as part of the ‘materials’ necessary for serving a catered meal. But, where a\ndepartment store sells the same china plates as stand-alone items, the plates count as ‘goods’ for\nthat retailer.” Id. Those same plates hung as decorations on the lobby wall of an accounting\nfirm, however, constitute neither goods nor materials “because the plates have no significant\nconnection to the business’s accounting work.” Id.\n\n We find the reasoning of Polycarpe persuasive because it gives effect to “materials”\nwithout totally overlapping with the statutory definition of “goods” and thus displacing the\nultimate-consumer exception contained within that definition. See Walker v. Bain, 257 F.3d 660,\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 12\n\n\n667 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Every word in the statute is presumed to have meaning, and we must give\neffect all the words to avoid an interpretation which would render words superfluous or\nredundant.” (citations omitted)); see also Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 524 (1987)\n(“[R]epeals by implication are not favored and will not be found unless an intent to repeal is\nclear and manifest.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).\n\n Applying the definition of “materials” from Polycarpe, the logging and harvesting\nequipment used by Timberline’s employees plainly constitute “materials” because the equipment\nis necessary to cut down trees and transport the timber, which in turn have a significant\nconnection to Timberline’s commercial activities of harvesting and selling timber.\n\n Defendants disagree with Polycarpe’s analysis, arguing that it erroneously “relied upon a\nsimple alternate definition” of “materials” rather than other definitions that would be “more\nconsistent with the language of the FLSA,” such as “constituent parts of a whole, or elements of\nsomething else,” or the “material components that make up” “the thing being produced by the\nenterprise.” (Reply at 1, 3-4.) However, Defendants’ proffered definition of “materials” has not\nbeen adopted by other circuits; and because “goods” includes in its definition “any part or\ningredient [of goods],” 29 U.S.C. § 203(i), Defendants’ definition would render both terms\nredundant.\n\n Defendants also argue that Polycarpe’s definition of “materials” is limited to items\nprovided by an employer to its customers or “incorporated into products as part of the defendant\nemployer’s services, such as paint used by a construction company, shutter blades for a window\nshutter manufacturer, [or] burglar alarms installed by a security company.” (Appellants’ Br. at\n13.) Defendants read Polycarpe too narrowly. Polycarpe remanded all but one of the cases9 to\nthe district court to determine whether the items at issue were moved in or produced for interstate\ncommerce and, if so, whether those items constitute “goods” or “materials.” 616 F.3d at 1229.\nSome of the items at issue in Polycarpe are analogous to the logging and harvesting equipment\nin this case, such as lawnmowers, edgers, and trucks used by a landscaping company. Id. at\n1228. On remand, the district court held that the landscaping company was a covered enterprise\n\n 9Polycarpe affirmed one judgment in one case in favor of the defendants because the evidence at trial did\nnot establish that the business met the volume requirement of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(ii). 616 F.3d at 1229.\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 13\n\n\nbecause the trucks it used were “materials” rather than “goods.” Polycarpe v. E & S\nLandscaping Serv., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2011).\n\n Finally, under these facts, we need not extensively address Defendants’ argument that\nfinding FLSA coverage in this case would “effectively erase the commerce requirement\nnecessary for FLSA jurisdiction” because “[e]very business uses computers made overseas, or\npencils and pens made out of state.” (Appellants’ Br. at 14.) As an initial matter, the parties\npoint to no case where the DOL has attempted to enforce the statute in this manner. Further, the\ncourt in Polycarpe was apparently concerned with expanding coverage in this way and offered\nreasonable bases to reject any attempt to do so. First, the court noted that the terms, “handling,\nselling, or otherwise working on” “denote a connection to the employer’s . . . commercial\nactivity,” such that mere internal and incidental consumption of an item would not suffice to\nqualify. 616 F.3d at 1226. Second, it explained that DOL regulations instruct that employees\nmust handle or work on the goods or materials “regularly and recurrently” for enterprise\ncoverage to attach. Id. at 1226 n.7 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 779.238). Regardless, coverage here is\nnot premised on employees’ incidental use of office items; rather, it is premised on employees’\nregular and recurrent use of logging and harvesting equipment that is used to carry out the\ncompany’s commercial activity of harvesting timber.\n\n Accordingly, the district court correctly found that Timberline is a covered enterprise\nunder the FLSA’s handling clause.\n\n B. Motor Carrier Act Exemption\n\n Next, Defendants challenge the district court’s determination that Timberline’s truck\ndrivers and their helpers are not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions pursuant to\n29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), which exempts from coverage “any employee with respect to whom the\nSecretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service\npursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of Title 49.” The Motor Carrier Act (MCA) provides\nthat the “Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for” “(1) qualifications and\nmaximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor\ncarrier”; and “(2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 14\n\n\nequipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.” 49 U.S.C.\n§ 31502(b). “Motor carrier” is defined as a “person who provides motor vehicle transportation\nfor compensation.” 49 U.S.C. § 13102(14). Defendants do not contend that Timberline is a\nmotor carrier. Rather, Defendants argue that Timberline is a “motor private carrier,” defined as a\nperson who transports property or goods in interstate commerce. 49 U.S.C. § 13102(15).\nConsistent with these statutory definitions, this court has previously explained that “[t]he MCA\n. . . gives the Secretary of Transportation ‘the authority to regulate the hours of an employee\n(1) who works for a private motor carrier that provides transportation in interstate commerce and\n(2) whose work activities affect the safety of operation of that motor carrier.’” Vaughn v.\nWatkins Motor Lines, Inc., 291 F.3d 900, 904 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Troutt v. Stavola Bros.,\nInc., 107 F.3d 1104, 1106-07 (4th Cir. 1997)).\n\n The employer bears the burden of proving that it qualifies for a claimed exemption.\nMartin v. Ind. Mich. Power Co., 381 F.3d 574, 578 (6th Cir. 2004). We give FLSA exemptions\na fair, rather than a narrow, reading. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134, 1142\n(2018).\n\n Defendants argue that some of Timberline’s employees are exempt from coverage\nbecause Timberline’s trucks are operated under U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)\nregistration numbers and its drivers maintain commercial driver’s licenses, which they say are\nsufficient bases to find that the MCA exemption applies. In support of this argument,\nDefendants cite Finn v. Dean Transportation, Inc., 53 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (M.D. Tenn. 2014). In\nFinn, the district court held that a company was a motor private carrier where its drivers\ntransported ten percent of its goods in interstate commerce. Id. at 1056-57. In response to the\nemployee’s argument that the MCA exemption should not apply because the DOT had never\nexercised its authority to audit the company or to conduct roadside stops, the district court stated\nthat “Finn’s concession that the DOT had ‘some regulatory authority’ over his work as a driver\nis, standing alone, dispositive of this issue.” Id. at 1057. The district court then noted that the\ndriver “admits that he was required to hold a CDL, that DTI has a DOT registration number, that\nDTI was subject to DOT audit, that its vehicles could be stopped for inspection at any time, and\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 15\n\n\nthat DTI drivers were required to undergo a yearly physical (for which DTI paid).” Id. at 1057-\n58.\n\n Defendants read too much into Finn. Finn was exempt because his employer met the\ndefinition of a motor private carrier and was therefore subject to DOT regulation. Id. at 1055-56.\nWe have previously rejected an argument that the mere issuance of a certificate by the Interstate\nCommerce Commission (which regulated motor carriers prior to the DOT) was sufficient to\nbring employees within the MCA exemption when those employees drove only intrastate routes.\nSee Baird v. Wagoner Transp. Co., 425 F.2d 407, 413 (6th Cir. 1970); see also Mazzarella v.\nFast Rig Support, LLC, 823 F.3d 786, 792 (3d Cir. 2016) (“The DOT certificate merely\nauthorizes Defendants to engage in interstate transportation. It provides no information about\nwhether Defendants’ drivers actually drove across state lines or otherwise engaged in interstate\ncommerce.”).\n\n The dispositive inquiry here is not whether Timberline’s employees held commercial\ndriver’s licenses or whether its trucks had DOT registration numbers; rather, the dispositive\ninquiry is whether Timberline’s drivers transport goods in interstate commerce, thus rendering\nTimberline a motor private carrier. 49 U.S.C. § 13102(15); Vaughn, 291 F.3d at 904. Courts\nhave consistently interpreted this to mean that drivers must travel or transport the goods across\nstate lines, or transport the goods in a “‘practical continuity of movement’ across State lines from\nthe point of origin to the point of departure.” 29 C.F.R. 782.7(b)(1) (quoting Walling v.\nJacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 568 (1943)); see also Baird, 425 F.2d at 413; Goldberg v.\nFaber Indus., Inc., 291 F.2d 232, 234 (7th Cir. 1961). Here, it is undisputed that Timberline’s\ntruck drivers did not cross state lines.\n\n Defendants nevertheless argue that Timberline’s drivers transport goods in “a practical\ncontinuity of movement” in interstate commerce because its timber “is an ingredient in the goods\nmanufactured by the mills to which it is delivered.” (Appellants’ Br. at 22.) Defendants,\nhowever, presented no evidence that their timber was eventually shipped in interstate commerce\nby the mills. To the contrary, Payne’s affidavit stated that Timberline has “no control over what\nis done with the timber delivered to the mills, nor do we know the eventual destination or use of\nthat timber.” (R. 19-3, PID 2080.) Further, even if the timber was used by the mills to make\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 16\n\n\nother products, such as paper, and then shipped across state lines, the fact that the timber was\naltered before crossing state lines weighs against finding the MCA exemption applicable. See\nMazzarella, 823 F.3d at 791-93 (citing Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars, Ltd., 589 F.3d 895, 897\n(7th Cir. 2009)) (in considering whether drivers who transported water to hydraulic fracking sites\nwithin Pennsylvania were subject to MCA exemption, “whether the water is altered during the\nfracking process” would be relevant in determining whether there was a practical continuity of\nmovement in interstate commerce; MCA exemption did not apply because the defendant\nproduced no evidence concerning this or other relevant matters).\n\n Absent any evidence that Timberline’s drivers crossed state lines or transported goods as\npart of a practical continuity of movement in interstate commerce, the district court correctly\nfound that none of Timberline’s employees was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements\nunder the MCA exemption.\n\n C. Damages\n\n 1. Briefing Before the District Court\n\n Three rounds of briefing occurred before the district court granted summary judgment on\ndamages. In the Secretary’s original summary judgment brief, Investigator Wrona estimated that\nTimberline owed unpaid overtime of $468,595.80 for 50 employees. Wrona explained that he\nprimarily relied on Timberline’s payroll records to calculate unpaid overtime. However, because\nTimberline lacked hours-worked records for some employees, Wrona had to use other methods\nto reconstruct the hours those employees worked. Defendants argued in part that in extrapolating\nhours worked from the employees’ pay records, the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.\n§ 254(a), required a reduction in the number of hours for the time employees spent on meals and\nin traveling to and from their homes to their workplaces—hours for which the employees were\npaid, but which do not count as work. After the original summary judgment briefing, the district\ncourt rejected Defendants’ argument that the Portal-to-Portal Act required such a reduction,\nfinding that Defendants had an established custom or practice of compensating for such time.\nThe district court also ordered supplemental briefing to clarify inconsistencies in the record and\nto provide requested information in a specific format.\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 17\n\n\n In the Secretary’s first supplemental brief, he calculated revised unpaid overtime to be\n$454,684.73 for the 50 employees. The Secretary explained that 43 out of the 50 employees\nwere paid an hourly rate for their entire employment, and because Defendants kept records of\ntheir hours worked, “[c]omputing overtime for these employees is a simple case of arithmetic\nbased upon Defendants’ own records.” (R. 38, PID 3725-26.) The Secretary explained that he\ncomputed back wages for the remaining seven employees without complete hours-worked\nrecords by: “(1) averaging the number of hours similarly situated employees worked per week or\n(2) averaging the number of hours individual employees worked each workweek based upon\ntime records previously kept for each employee prior to Defendants changing the employee\ncompensation to non-hourly and ceas[ing] keeping the required records.” (Id. at PID 3726.) The\nSecretary also presented voluminous data showing how he arrived at the calculated unpaid\novertime. Defendants argued in response that the calculations performed by the Secretary for the\nnon-hourly employees lacked credibility because the calculations guessed at hours worked and\npay rate, contained errors, and led to absurd results because Defendants presented evidence that\ntheir employees were paid significantly more than the industry average.\n\n The district court noted certain discrepancies that required additional briefing but also\nrejected many of Defendants’ arguments that the data was inflated and that industry-aggregate\ndata should be used instead. It reasoned that “Defendants simply reassert their overarching\nargument that their compensation scheme resulted in compensation that far exceeded industry\naverages and, therefore, that they should be excused from their obligations under the FLSA\novertime provisions. They cite no authority for this proposition.” (R. 43, PID 4187.) The\ndistrict court also noted that Defendants were critiquing the Secretary’s “methodology largely by\ncherry picking particular workweeks with unusually high gross wages or unusually low gross\nwages” and were essentially attacking “the statistical concept of an average.” (Id. at PID 4188.)\n\n In the Secretary’s second supplemental brief regarding damages, the Secretary addressed\nthe district court’s identified concerns and recalculated unpaid overtime to $445,533.49, which\nreflected a change of unpaid overtime for three non-hourly employees and one hourly employee.\nDefendants responded by arguing that the Secretary’s third attempt still contained errors, which\nthey said evidenced a total lack of credibility in the Secretary’s calculations, and thus the district\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 18\n\n\ncourt should award no damages or use the industry-aggregate data to determine unpaid overtime.\nThey also reasserted their argument that the award should be reduced due to compensation for\ncommute and meal time.\n\n The district court made reductions to the Secretary’s claimed unpaid overtime to address\nerrors identified by Defendants, but otherwise rejected Defendants’ arguments. The district court\nawarded damages for unpaid overtime of $439,437.42, and an equal amount in liquidated\ndamages.\n\n 2. Arguments on Appeal\n\n On appeal, Defendants appear to make two legal arguments. First, Defendants argue that\nthe district court erred in not applying the Portal-to-Portal Act to reduce overtime owed by the\ntime the employees spent during meals and traveling to and from work. Second, Defendants\nargue that because each of the Secretary’s calculations of overtime contained errors and\ninconsistences, the Secretary failed to meet his burden to prove damages, and the district court\nshould have entered an award of no damages or ordered that industry-aggregate data be used to\narrive at a just and reasonable damages amount.\n\n 3. Analysis\n\n The Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 254, provides in part:\n\n (a) Activities not compensable\n Except as provided in subsection (b), no employer shall be subject to any liability\n or punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 . . . on account of the\n failure of such employer to pay an employee minimum wages, or to pay an\n employee overtime compensation, for or on account of any of the following\n activities of such employee . . .\n\n (1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of\n performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is\n employed to perform, and\n (2) activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal\n activity or activities,\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 19\n\n\n which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such\n employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at\n which he ceases, such principal activity or activities. . . .\n\n (b) Compensability by contract or custom\n Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) which relieve an employer from\n liability and punishment with respect to any activity, the employer shall not be so\n relieved if such activity is compensable by . . .\n ....\n (2) a custom or practice in effect, at the time of such activity, at the\n establishment or other place where such employee is employed, covering\n such activity, not inconsistent with a written or nonwritten contract, in\n effect at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or\n collective-bargaining representative and his employer.\n (c) Restriction on activities compensable under contract or custom\n For the purposes of subsection (b), an activity shall be considered as compensable\n under such contract provision or such custom or practice only when it is engaged\n in during the portion of the day with respect to which it is so made compensable.\n\n (d) Determination of time employed with respect to activities\n In the application of the minimum wage and overtime compensation provisions of\n the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, of the Walsh-Healey Act, or\n of the Bacon-Davis Act, in determining the time for which an employer employs\n an employee with respect to walking, riding, traveling, or other preliminary or\n postliminary activities described in subsection (a) of this section, there shall be\n counted all that time, but only that time, during which the employee engages in\n any such activity which is compensable within the meaning of subsections (b) and\n (c) of this section.\n\n The district court held after the initial summary judgment briefing that Defendants had a\ncustom or practice of paying for non-compensable time such as travel and meal time and\nreasoned that this time must be included in determining hours worked and overtime owed\npursuant to the Portal-to-Portal Act. After the initial summary judgment briefing, Defendants\nsubmitted affidavits from five employees, which they argued showed “some, but not necessarily\nall, employees who did not agree or understand that these hours would be included as hours\nworked or for overtime.” (R. 41, PID 4115.) These affidavits stated that the employee “was\npaid for driving to and from the worksite, but [he] did not have an agreement or understanding\nthat this time would be included in any calculation of overtime.” (See, e.g., R. 41-12, PID\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 20\n\n\n4167.)10 The affidavits also stated that the employee “took a half-hour lunch when [he] could fit\nit in” and that the employee included “drive time and lunch time in total hours.” (Id.)\n\n Although the plain language of the Portal-to-Portal Act suggests that home-to-work\ncommutes are deemed compensable if the employer has a custom or practice of compensating for\nsuch work, 29 C.F.R. § 785.34 explains that “ordinary travel from home to work (see § 785.35)\nneed not be counted as hours worked even if the employer agrees to pay for it.” And, 29 C.F.R.\n§ 785.35 says plainly that “[n]ormal travel from home to work is not worktime.” The reason is\nthat the FLSA only requires overtime compensation for “actual work or employment,” Tenn.\nCoal, Iron & R. Co., 321 U.S. at 597, “[a]nd even where there is a contract, custom, or practice\nto pay for time spent in such a ‘preliminary’ or ‘postliminary’ activity, section 4(d) of the Portal\nAct does not make such time hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act, if it would not\nbe so counted under the latter Act alone,” 29 C.F.R. § 790.7; see also id. § 790.5 (“But where,\napart from the Portal Act, time spent in such an activity would not be time worked within the\nmeaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, although made compensable by contract, custom, or\npractice, such compensability will not make it time worked under section 4(d) of the Portal\nAct.”)11 “The general rule . . . is and always has been that the FLSA does not treat ordinary\nhome-to-job-site travel as compensable.” Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352, 360 (2d\nCir. 2011). The same is true of “bona fide meal periods.” 29 C.F.R. § 785.19; see also Ruffin v.\nMotorCity Casino, 775 F.3d 807, 811-15 (6th Cir. 2015) (examining whether meal periods were\ncompensable under the FLSA as “work”).\n\n Although it does not appear that any other circuit court has addressed this issue, district\ncourts have held that ordinary home-to-work and work-to-home commute time does not qualify\nas “work” under the FLSA even if the employer has paid for such time, and therefore that time is\n\n\n 10Other employees submitted declarations indicating that their timecards did not include commute time and\nthat they usually did not take a bona fide meal break.\n 11A different regulation suggests that where there is an agreement between the parties to treat non-\ncompensable time, such as bona fide meal time, as “work” that is subject to the overtime requirements of the FLSA,\nthat time would be included as “work” in the calculation of unpaid overtime. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.320. However,\nthe district court did not rely on any agreement between the parties, and neither party briefs this issue on appeal.\nRather, the district court focused only on whether Defendants had a custom or practice of paying for commute and\nlunch time, not whether there was an agreement to treat the time as hours worked under the FLSA.\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 21\n\n\nnot subject to overtime requirements. See Pietrzycki v. Heights Tower Serv., Inc., 290 F. Supp.\n3d 822, 835 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (“In other words, a custom, practice, or contract of paying for\nordinary home-to-work commuting cannot make that travel time into hours worked if it would\nnot have been characterized as such before Congress passed the PPA.”); Shearer v. Edger\nAssocs. Inc., No. 8:14-CV-2689-T-27JSS, 2015 WL 9274928, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2015)\n(“As discussed, Defendants’ policy to compensate Shearer for her commute time from home to\nthe first work site and from the last work site home does not make those hours ‘worked’ for\npurposes of the FLSA.”); Gilmer v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dist., No. C 08-05186 CW,\n2010 WL 289299, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2010) (“Thus, the exceptions to the Portal Act do not\nrender compensable time that would not otherwise have been compensable under the FLSA. . . .\nAccordingly, Plaintiffs’ start-end travel time, even if they were paid for it, would not be included\nin computing their hours worked for overtime purposes if it were considered travel from work to\nhome.”); Johnson v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, 554 F. Supp. 2d 693, 707 (E.D. Tex. 2007)\n(“A review of the applicable regulations and case law on this issue leads the court to conclude\nthat, because the travel at issue in this case was ordinary home-to-work travel, such travel did not\nqualify as hours worked, even if RGIS had a custom or practice of paying for it.”).\n\n The regulations and district court cases applying them are persuasive and a reasonable\ninterpretation of the statutes. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944) (“[R]ulings,\ninterpretations and opinions of the Administrator under this Act, while not controlling upon the\ncourts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to\nwhich courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance. The weight of such a judgment in a\nparticular case will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its\nreasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give\nit power to persuade, if lacking power to control.”). Accordingly, we adopt their interpretation.\n\n Here, the district court determined that ordinary commute time and meal time that was\nincluded in Defendants’ records qualified as compensable hours under the FLSA and, therefore,\nthe court did not determine, and the Secretary did not calculate, the amount of ordinary commute\ntime and bona fide meal time included in the records used to calculate unpaid overtime. This\nwas error. Any ordinary commute and bona fide meal time that can be established must not be\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 22\n\n\nincluded in determining how many hours of overtime each employee worked, although\nDefendants may not use the amounts paid for those otherwise non-compensable work periods as\nan offset against the amounts owed. See Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp., 370 F.3d 901, 913\n(9th Cir. 2004); Reich v. Lucas Enterprises, Inc., 2 F.3d 1151 (6th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we\nvacate the grant of summary judgment on damages and remand for further proceedings.12\n\n Given our disposition of this issue, we need not address Defendants’ remaining\narguments on damages. However, in the interest of judicial economy, we note that the district\ncourt was correct in rejecting Defendants’ argument that “industry aggregate data” should be\nused to determine unpaid overtime rather than Defendants’ payroll records. Defendants’\nproposed calculation method focuses not on the employees’ actual rate, see 29 U.S.C. § 207\n(requiring employers to pay an employee “not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at\nwhich he is employed” for hours worked over 40 in a workweek (emphasis added)), but rather\nthe rate at which other employees at different companies with potentially vastly different job\nduties and experience are paid. Because there is no support for applying this methodology, the\ndistrict court correctly rejected this argument at the summary-judgment stage. See Acosta v. Off\nDuty Police Servs., Inc., 915 F.3d 1050, 1065 (6th Cir. 2019) (“The reasonableness of the DOL’s\nproposed calculation depends in part on the availability of other, more reasonable alternatives to\nthat proposal. . . . Although the calculation adopted by the district court may be imprecise, it is\nthe best method available in light of ODPS’s failure to maintain accurate and complete\nrecords.”).\n\n D. Liquidated Damages\n\n The FLSA provides that “[a]ny employer who violates [the FLSA’s minimum wage or\novertime provisions] shall be liable to the employee or employees affected” in the amount of the\nunpaid overtime compensation “and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.”\n\n\n 12The Secretary argued to the district court that even if Defendants’ employees’ travel time and lunch\nbreaks were included in the recorded hours, Defendants did not meet their burden to negate the reasonableness of the\nSecretary’s damages computations, that there was an agreement to treat these hours as hours worked, and that\nDefendants did not establish that the travel time did not constitute work time or that their employees received bona\nfide meal breaks. The district court did not address any of these arguments, and the Secretary does not argue these\nalternative bases for affirmance on appeal. Accordingly, we leave these issues to the district court.\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 23\n\n\n29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Despite the mandatory wording of that section, Congress has authorized\ndistrict courts to reduce or decline to award liquidated damages under the FLSA “if the employer\nshows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in\ngood faith and that [the employer] had reasonable grounds for believing that [the] act or\nomission was not a violation of the” FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 260. “This burden on the employer is\nsubstantial and requires ‘proof that [the employer’s] failure to obey the statute was both in good\nfaith and predicated upon such reasonable grounds that it would be unfair to impose upon [it]\nmore than a compensatory verdict.’” Elwell v. Univ. Hosps. Home Care Servs., 276 F.3d 832,\n840 (6th Cir. 2002) (alterations in original) (quoting McClanahan v. Mathews, 440 F.2d 320, 322\n(6th Cir. 1971)).\n\n “To prove that it acted in good faith, an employer ‘must show that [it] took affirmative\nsteps to ascertain the Act’s requirements, but nonetheless violated its provisions.’” Martin v.\nInd. Mich. Power Co., 381 F.3d 574, 584–85 (6th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting\nMartin v. Cooper Elec. Supply Co., 940 F.2d 896, 908 (3d. Cir. 1991)). Establishing that the\nemployer did not willfully misclassify an employee is insufficient to show good faith. Id. (citing\nElwell, 276 F.3d at 841 n.5). Rather, “[t]he employer has an affirmative duty to ascertain and\nmeet the FLSA’s requirements, and an employer who negligently misclassifies an employee as\nexempt is not acting in good faith.” Id. (citing Elwell, 276 F.3d at 841 n.5)\n\n Defendants argue that because Payne reasonably and in good faith relied on his\naccountant’s advice that logging companies are exempt from the overtime provisions of the\nFLSA, the district court erred in concluding that it had no discretion to decline to award or to\nreduce the liquidated damages. Defendants further argue that Timberline’s pay structure\nresulting in higher-than-average compensation for its employees makes an award of liquidated\ndamages particularly unjust.\n\n Defendants have not presented sufficient evidence to meet their substantial burden to\nprove both good faith and reasonable grounds for the incorrect classification. As to the drivers,\nshop workers, and office workers, Payne himself testified that he knew these employees were not\nagricultural workers. Although Payne attempted to justify exempting his drivers and shop\nworkers under the MCA exemption, Payne never sought advice for this decision or took any\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 24\n\n\nother active steps to inform himself regarding this determination. Further, he acknowledged that\nhis drivers never crossed state lines, and he was not able to explain any reasonable grounds he\nmay have had for determining that the MCA exemption applied to purely intrastate drivers.\nThus, Defendants have not met their substantial burden to prove both good faith and reasonable\ngrounds for the incorrect classification of Timberline’s drivers, shop workers, and office\nworkers.\n\n Defendants’ employees performing harvesting and logging duties present a closer\nquestion. Taking Payne’s testimony as true, he talked to Rooyakker on several occasions about\nwhether the agricultural exemption applied. Although caselaw usually cites discussions with\nattorneys or government officials as evidence of good faith, see, e.g., Elwell, 276 F.3d at 841\n(“Nor has University suggested that it was relying on the expertise or opinion of any other person\nor entity with knowledge of the FLSA regulations, including its attorney or the Department of\nLabor.”); Featsent v. City of Youngstown, 70 F.3d 900, 906-07 (6th Cir. 1995); Steele v. Leasing\nEnterprises, Ltd., 826 F.3d 237, 246-47 (5th Cir. 2016), some cases have extended this rationale\nto accountants, see Copantitla v. Fiskardo Estiatorio, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d 253, 316-17\n(S.D.N.Y. 2011). However, several undisputed facts weigh against finding that Defendants\ncould meet their burden here. First, Payne knew that Rooyakker’s advice was flawed or\nincomplete, at least with respect to truck drivers and office workers. Second, Payne never\ndiscussed any of his employees’ duties with Rooyakker such that Payne could reasonably believe\nthat Rooyakker was advising that specific employees were exempt. And third, Rooyakker did\nnot hold himself out as an expert in FLSA matters, and indeed never provided anyone else with\nadvice on such matters.\n\n Further, Defendants do not attempt to explain on appeal how a determination that any of\ntheir employees fell under the agricultural exemption was reasonable. The district court\nsummarily rejected that the agricultural exemption applied; Defendants do not raise this issue on\nappeal; and Defendants’ briefing regarding liquidated damages focuses primarily on the MCA\nexemption. Under these circumstances, Payne’s general discussions with Rooyakker are\ninsufficient as a matter of law for Defendants to meet their heavy burden to prove both good\nfaith and reasonable grounds for the incorrect classification. See Doty v. Elias, 733 F.2d 720,\n\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 25\n\n\n726 (10th Cir. 1984) (finding that advice of an accountant that compensation scheme was legal\neight to ten years prior to trial was insufficient to meet employer’s burden where the employer\n“never sought an opinion from an attorney or the relevant government agency regarding the\nlegality of” the compensation scheme and did not read government literature regarding wage and\nhour laws).\n\n Finally, as the district court explained, Defendants’ argument that they compensated their\nemployees above the industry average is irrelevant to whether they met their burden to establish\ngood faith and reasonable grounds for the determination that Timberline’s employees were\nexempt from overtime coverage. If they had established both of those prongs, the district court\ncould consider the overall compensation in the exercise of its discretion in awarding liquidated\ndamages. But having failed to meet their burden, this argument is misplaced.\n\n Accordingly, the district court correctly held that it had no discretion to award liquidated\ndamages in an amount less than the amount of unpaid overtime compensation. See 29 U.S.C.\n§ 216(b). However, because the amount of unpaid overtime compensation owed may change\nafter further proceedings, we vacate the amount awarded for liquidated damages and remand for\nrecalculation after further proceedings.\n\n III.\n\n For the reasons stated, we affirm the grant of summary judgment as to liability, including\non the issue of liquidated damages, vacate the award of damages, and remand for further\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: SECRETARY OF LABOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMBERLINE SOUTH, LLC; Jim Payne, Defendants-Appellants.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-29\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0108p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n SECRETARY OF LABOR, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-1763\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n TIMBERLINE SOUTH, LLC; JIM PAYNE, │\\n Defendants-Appellants. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.\\n No. 1:16-cv-11552—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: March 14, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 29, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUTTON, WHITE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Jeffrey S. Theuer, LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C.,\\nLansing, Michigan, for Appellants. Sarah J. Starrett, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF\\nLABOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey S. Theuer, LOOMIS, EWERT,\\nPARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C., Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants. Sarah J. Starrett,\\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.\\n\\n ______________________\\n\\n AMENDED OPINION\\n ______________________\\n\\n HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Defendant Timberline South, LLC (Timberline) is a timber-harvesting company that\\noperates solely in Michigan, but uses logging and harvesting equipment and trucks that were\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nmanufactured outside of Michigan. The Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) brought this action\\nagainst Timberline and its director, Jim Payne, alleging violations of the overtime and\\nrecordkeeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).\\n\\n The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, and awarded\\n$439,437.42 in unpaid overtime and an equal amount in liquidated damages. The district court\\nreasoned that Timberline was a covered enterprise under the FLSA because it “has employees\\nhandling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or\\nproduced for commerce by any person,” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(i), i.e., the logging and\\nharvesting equipment manufactured outside of Michigan. Part of the damages award included\\ntime employees spent commuting from home to work or for meal periods, which the district\\ncourt included in the overtime calculation after finding that Timberline had an established\\ncustom or practice of compensating its employees for such time.\\n\\n Defendants appeal, arguing that the district court erred in finding liability and awarding\\nunpaid overtime and liquidated damages. We affirm the district court’s liability determination.\\nHowever, because the district court erred in finding that ordinary commute time and bona fide\\nmeal periods qualify as compensable hours subject to the FLSA’s overtime requirements, we\\nvacate the award of damages and remand for further proceedings.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Timberline was formed in 2010 as a Michigan limited liability company. Payne is an\\nofficer of Timberline and directs all of its operations. Timberline removes raw timber from\\nforests, cuts the timber, and transports the timber to mills for processing into paper and other\\nproducts. Timberline maintains two to four worksites, each with approximately four equipment\\noperators who cut down trees, cut the timber into lengths, and transport the timber to a landing\\nsite. Timberline also employs six to eight truck drivers, who load the timber at the landing site\\nand transport it to the mills, as well as mechanics and an office manager. Timberline’s\\nequipment operators use heavy, specialized machinery, including harvesters and hydro-axes to\\ncut down trees and cut the trees into lengths, and forwarders and skidders to transport the timber\\nto the landing site or to load trucks. All of Timberline’s business activities occur in Michigan: it\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nharvests timber in Michigan; it transports timber to mills located only in Michigan; it entered\\ninto contracts for cutting timber in Michigan; and it purchased its trucks and heavy equipment\\nfrom Michigan sellers. Although purchased and used only in Michigan, Timberline’s trucks and\\nheavy equipment were manufactured outside of Michigan.\\n\\n Payne established Timberline’s compensation and recordkeeping practices. Timberline\\npaid its employees using a daily rate, an hourly rate, or a cord1 rate. Timberline recorded hours\\nworked for hourly employees but did not do so for most non-hourly employees, and did not pay\\nits employees an overtime rate for hours worked over 40 in a week.\\n\\n Timberline was founded after a previous company, Timberline Logging, Inc. (Timberline\\nLogging), went out of business. In February 2011, Payne instructed his office manager to email\\nMatthew Rooyakker, Timberline Logging’s accountant, regarding whether Timberline Logging\\nwas exempt from paying overtime “under FLSA in Tennessee.” (R. 18-12, PID 1674.)2 Payne\\nalso testified that he discussed FLSA coverage with his accountant on “a couple different\\noccasions” “awhile back,” “before the investigation” that led to this lawsuit. (R. 19-12, PID\\n2273.) According to Payne, Rooyakker told him that “we were exempt under agriculture” (id. at\\nPID 2274), although Rooyakker had not held himself out as knowledgeable about the FLSA, and\\nPayne did not believe that his truck drivers or office workers were agricultural employees.\\nPayne did not consult with an attorney.\\n\\n Defendants took the position in this lawsuit that the Motor Carrier Act exemption,\\n29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), exempts some of Timberline’s employees from FLSA coverage. In\\nresponse to the Secretary’s interrogatories about this exemption, Defendants stated that they\\nrelied upon the “FLSA and publications prepared by Plaintiff” in determining that that the Motor\\nCarrier Act exemption applied, but Payne did not recall which publications he relied on and was\\nnot able to explain why his drivers and their helpers were exempt if the drivers only drove\\nintrastate routes. (R. 18-4, PID 271-81.)\\n\\n\\n\\n 1A cord is a standard measurement of wood.\\n 2Timberline Logging performed work in Tennessee, but Timberline did not.\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n Rooyakker testified that the only time he provided advice regarding the FLSA was at a\\nmeeting with Payne on February 17, 2011. At that meeting, in response to Timberline Logging’s\\ninquiry, Rooyakker told Payne that it appeared that “you’re exempt” under the agricultural\\nexemption. (R. 18-13, PID 1702.) Rooyakker testified that he did not advise which of\\nTimberline Logging’s or Timberline’s employees were subject to the FLSA’s agricultural\\nexemption and never opined whether either entity’s employees in Michigan may also be exempt.\\n\\n Wage and Hour Investigator Jeffrey Wrona of the Department of Labor (DOL)\\ninvestigated Timberline for wage and recordkeeping violations for the time period of August 25,\\n2013 through August 20, 2015, later extended through March 20, 2017. After assessing unpaid\\novertime wages, the Secretary of Labor filed a complaint alleging that Defendants had violated\\nthe overtime and recordkeeping provisions of the FLSA, and sought an injunction, back wages,\\nand liquidated damages.\\n\\n The district court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment in part and\\ndenied Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, granted the Secretary’s motion to\\namend the complaint to include additional employees and FLSA violations that had occurred\\nduring 2016 and 2017, awarded liquidated damages, and ordered further briefing by the parties\\non the amount of backpay.\\n\\n After two rounds of supplemental briefing, the district court issued a final summary\\njudgment decision awarding $439,437.42 in backpay damages and an equal amount in liquidated\\ndamages. This appeal followed.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n This court reviews de novo a grant of summary judgment, viewing all evidence and\\ndrawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Pearce v.\\nChrysler Grp. LLC Pension Plan, 893 F.3d 339, 345 (6th Cir. 2018).3 Summary judgment is\\n\\n\\n 3The Secretary argues that we should review the district court’s decision to award liquidated damages for\\nan abuse of discretion, but in making that argument the Secretary relies on cases involving liquidated damages\\nawarded after a trial. Here, the district court decided the issue on summary judgment and found that it had no\\ndiscretion as a matter of law to decline to award or reduce the amount of liquidated damages. Hence, our review is\\nde novo. See Chao v. A-One Med. Servs., Inc., 346 F.3d 908, 920 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Although we generally review a\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nappropriate only where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is\\nentitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\\n\\n A. Enterprise Coverage and the Handling Clause\\n\\n The FLSA requires, among other things, that a qualifying enterprise pay certain\\nemployees overtime pay at one and one-half times their regular rate for each hour above\\n40 worked in a workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). At issue in this appeal is whether Timberline is\\n“an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” defined as\\n\\n an enterprise that--\\n (A)(i) has employees engaged in commerce4 or in the production of goods5 for\\n commerce, or that has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on\\n goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any\\n person; and\\n (ii) is an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is\\n not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that are\\n separately stated);\\n\\n29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).\\n\\n There is no dispute that Timberline is an “enterprise” under § 203(r)(1),6 qualifies as an\\n“employer” under § 203(d),7 and had an annual gross volume of sales in excess of $500,000 for\\neach relevant year, § 203(s)(1)(A)(ii). Nor did the Secretary argue that Timberline was a\\n\\ndistrict court’s decision on liquidated damages for abuse of discretion, we review the issue here, which was decided\\nbelow on summary judgment, de novo.” (internal citation omitted)).\\n 4‘“Commerce’ means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several\\nStates or between any State and any place outside thereof.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(b).\\n 5“‘Goods’ means goods (including ships and marine equipment), wares, products, commodities,\\nmerchandise, or articles or subjects of commerce of any character, or any part or ingredient thereof, but does not\\ninclude goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of the ultimate consumer thereof other than a\\nproducer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(i).\\n 6‘“Enterprise’ means the related activities performed (either through unified operation or common control)\\nby any person or persons for a common business purpose, and includes all such activities whether performed in one\\nor more establishments or by one or more corporate or other organizational units including departments of an\\nestablishment operated through leasing arrangements, but shall not include the related activities performed for such\\nenterprise by an independent contractor. . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 203(r)(1).\\n 7‘“Employer’ includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to\\nan employee and includes a public agency, but does not any labor organization (other than when acting as an\\nemployer) or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\ncovered enterprise because it had “employees engaged in commerce or in the production of\\ngoods for commerce.” § 203(s)(1)(A)(i). Rather, the parties disagree about whether Timberline\\n“has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been\\nmoved in or produced for commerce by any person,” id., often referred to as the “handling\\nclause.”\\n\\n As originally enacted, the FLSA covered certain employees but did not encompass\\nenterprise-wide coverage. That concept was added in 1961. See Pub. L. No. 87-30, § 2, 75 Stat.\\n65, 65-66 (1961). “After the [1961] amendment, if an employer had two or more workers\\nengaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce, FLSA coverage extended to all\\nof the enterprise’s employees.” Polycarpe v. E&S Landscaping Serv., Inc., 616 F.3d 1217, 1220\\n(11th Cir. 2010) (citing Dunlop v. Indus. Am. Corp., 516 F.2d 498, 500-01 (5th Cir. 1975)).\\nIncluded in the 1961 amendment was the addition of the handling clause. In 1974, Congress\\nclarified that the handling clause was an independent basis for enterprise coverage8 and added\\n“or materials” to that clause. See id. at 1220-21. “Materials” is not defined in the statute.\\n“Goods” is, however, and contains what is often called the “ultimate-consumer exception,”\\nexcluding from the definition “goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of\\nthe ultimate consumer thereof other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.”\\n29 U.S.C. § 203(i). The district court held that Timberline is a covered enterprise under the\\nhandling clause because Timberline’s employees’ use of logging and harvesting equipment\\nmanufactured outside of Michigan constitutes “handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods\\nor materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person.”\\n§ 203(s)(1)(A)(i).\\n\\n Defendants argue that Timberline is not a covered enterprise because the only thing\\nTimberline’s employees “handle” is timber, which never crosses state lines; and that even if they\\n“handled” the logging and harvesting equipment, that equipment does not qualify as “materials,”\\nbut rather qualifies as “goods,” and that Timberline is the ultimate consumer of those goods such\\n\\n 8Between the 1961 and 1974 amendments, coverage extended to enterprises with “employees engaged in\\ncommerce or in the production of goods for commerce, including employees handling, selling, or otherwise working\\non goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s) (1970) (emphasis added). The\\n1974 amendment replaced “including” with “or.”\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nthat the FLSA does not apply. (Appellants’ Br. at 11-14, 16-18.) Further, Defendants argue that\\nfinding enterprise coverage in this case “would effectively erase the commerce requirement\\nnecessary for FLSA jurisdiction” because “[e]very business uses computers made overseas, or\\npencils and pens made out of state, or copiers, paper, or telephones made in other jurisdictions.”\\n(Appellants’ Br. at 14.)\\n\\n We begin our analysis of the “handling clause” with the language of the statute.\\nBrilliance Audio, Inc. v. Haights Cross Commc’ns, Inc., 474 F.3d 365, 371 (6th Cir. 2007). “If\\nthe language of the statute is clear, then the inquiry is complete, and the court should look no\\nfurther. Only if the statute is ‘inescapably ambiguous’ should a court look to other persuasive\\nauthority in an attempt to discern legislative meaning.” Id. (citations omitted).\\n\\n The plain language of the statute contradicts Defendants’ arguments that Timberline is\\nnot a covered enterprise because “[t]he only good or material that Timberline handles, sells, or\\notherwise works on within the meaning of the FLSA, is the timber itself,” and because\\nTimberline’s employees “did not place th[e logging and harvesting] equipment in commerce\\nthemselves.” (Appellants’ Br. at 12.) We find no merit to these arguments because it is not\\nrelevant under the statute that Timberline employees did not place the logging and harvesting\\nequipment in commerce themselves; the plain language of the statute provides coverage where\\nemployees handle, sell, or otherwise work on “goods or materials that have been moved in or\\nproduced for commerce by any person.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis added). “The\\ntense is in the past. There is no requirement of continuity in the present.” Polycarpe, 616 F.3d\\nat 1221 (quoting Brennan v. Greene’s Propane Gas Serv., Inc., 479 F.2d 1027, 1030 (5th Cir.\\n1973)). Further, the statute makes clear that it applies when any person—not just the employees\\nof the enterprise—has moved or produced the handled goods or materials in commerce. Because\\nthe logging and harvesting equipment had previously been moved in and produced for commerce\\nby others prior to being handled by Timberline employees, this part of the statute is satisfied.\\n\\n Less clear is whether the logging and harvesting equipment constitute “goods” or\\n“materials” and whether Timberline is the ultimate consumer of the logging and harvesting\\nequipment such that if the logging and harvesting equipment qualify as goods and not materials,\\nthe ultimate-consumer exception operates to exclude Timberline from coverage. “[P]recisely\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\ndetermining the correct ordinary meaning of ‘materials’ for the FLSA is challenging because the\\nFLSA’s statutory definition of ‘goods’ is so expansive, ostensibly including some items that\\ncould also fall under the ordinary meaning of ‘materials.’” Id. at 1223. Thus, we may look to\\nother sources to determine the meaning, including “interpretations by other courts, legislative\\nhistory, policy rationales, and the context in which the statute was passed.” Brilliance Audio,\\n474 F.3d at 371-72.\\n\\n As an initial matter, we have previously explained that the FLSA “was enacted by\\nCongress to be a broadly remedial and humanitarian statute. The Act was designed to correct\\n‘labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for\\nhealth, efficiency, and general well-being of workers . . .’” Donovan v. Brandel, 736 F.2d 1114,\\n1116 (6th Cir. 1984) (alteration in original) (quoting Dunlop v. Carriage Carpet Co., 548 F.2d\\n139, 143 (6th Cir. 1977)). “[T]he FLSA, as a statute designed to protect individual rights, . . .\\n‘must not be interpreted or applied in a narrow, grudging manner.’” Herman v. Fabri-Centers of\\nAm., Inc., 308 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Tenn. Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda\\nLocal No. 123, 321 U.S. 590, 597 (1944)).\\n\\n Several of our sister circuits have addressed similar situations and have suggested that the\\naddition of “or materials” to the handling clause essentially rendered the ultimate-consumer\\nexception obsolete. In Brock v. Hamad, the Fourth Circuit held that the defendant’s rental\\noperation was a covered enterprise where the defendant stipulated that he “had bought goods that\\nhad been moved in interstate commerce and that these goods had been used in the course of his\\nemployees’ employment.” 867 F.2d 804, 807-08 (4th Cir. 1989). Rejecting the defendant’s\\nargument that the rental operation was the ultimate consumer of these goods so that coverage did\\nnot extend to it, the Fourth Circuit explained: “Hamad’s argument, however, erroneously isolates\\nSection 203(i)[‘s definition of ‘goods’] from the remainder of the FLSA. When Section 203(i) is\\nread in context with Section 203(s), which covers ‘employees handling, selling, or otherwise\\nworking on goods or materials,’ it seems that defendant’s argument must fail.” Id. at 807; see\\nalso id. at 808 (“[I]t is well established that local business activities fall within the FLSA when\\nan enterprise employs workers who handle goods or materials that have moved or have been\\nproduced in interstate commerce.”); Dole v. Odd Fellows Home Endowment Bd., 912 F.2d 689,\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n695 (4th Cir. 1990) (“Appellants’ contention that the Home was in some sense the ‘ultimate\\nconsumer’ of the goods and materials that moved in interstate commerce does not preclude\\napplication of the Act.” (citing Hamad, 867 F.2d at 807-08)).\\n\\n Similarly, the Third Circuit held that a company “engaged in the business of collecting\\ngarbage, trash, and scrap metal” was a covered enterprise. Marshall v. Brunner, 668 F.2d 748,\\n750 (3d Cir. 1982). The defendant argued that its use of “motor vehicles, gas, oil, and other\\nmanufactured goods” did not result in FLSA coverage because it was the ultimate consumer of\\nthose goods. Id. at 751. The Third Circuit rejected that argument, relying heavily on the\\nlegislative history in concluding that the company was a covered enterprise. Id. at 751-52 (citing\\nS. Rep. No. 93–690, at 17 (1974), which explains that the amendment “adds the words ‘or\\nmaterials’ after the word ‘goods’ to make clear the Congressional intent to include within this\\nadditional basis of coverage the handling of goods consumed in the employer’s business, as, e.g.,\\nthe soap used by a laundry”).\\n\\n The Tenth Circuit reached the same conclusion regarding a real-estate developer whose\\nemployees used construction machinery for “removing and thinning trees, clearing brush,\\ngrading and contouring the land for streets and drainage, installing culverts, pouring concrete for\\ncurbs and laying asphalt.” Donovan v. Pointon, 717 F.2d 1320, 1322 (10th Cir. 1983). Although\\nthe defendant had acquired the machinery from within the same state in which the equipment\\nwas used, the Tenth Circuit explained that fact was\\n\\n irrelevant to a determination of whether [the defendant] is a covered\\n employer. The critical issue is whether the goods or materials handled by [the\\n defendant] and his employees had moved in interstate commerce, and, in this\\n regard, it is undisputed that they did. “Using” goods or materials which have\\n moved in interstate commerce constitutes a “handling” within the meaning of 29\\n U.S.C. § 203(s).\\n\\nId. at 1322-23 (internal citations omitted); see also Donovan v. Scoles, 652 F.2d 16, 18-19 (9th\\nCir. 1981) (gas station engaged in purely intrastate activities is a covered enterprise because the\\nFLSA “imposes no requirement that the goods have a present involvement in interstate\\ncommerce when they are handled or sold. Instead it broadens coverage to include all employees\\nwithin the stream of commerce of such goods, even if their own participation remains purely\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nintrastate.”); Brennan v. Iowa, 494 F.2d 100, 101, 103 n.5, 104 (8th Cir. 1974) (holding that\\nhospitals and schools were subject to the FLSA because “many employees handle articles which\\nhave moved in interstate commerce,” including drugs, cleaning supplies, food, and laundry\\nsupplies); Indus. Am. Corp., 516 F.2d at 501-02, 502 n.8 (explaining that the 1974 “amendment\\nleaves the definition of goods intact but circumvents it by a broader definition of ‘enterprise\\nengaged in commerce,’” which had the effect of expanding the FLSA “to every enterprise in the\\nnation doing” the requisite volume of business); Archie v. Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc., 997 F. Supp.\\n504, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (Sotomayor, J.) (explaining that the 1974 amendments to the FLSA\\nresulted in “virtually every enterprise” doing the requisite volume of business being covered by\\nthe FLSA, and holding that sanitations crews’ use of “bags, brooms, shovels, pails, scrapers . . .\\nradios, books . . . [and] flashlights” that had moved in interstate commerce resulted in FLSA\\nenterprise coverage (alterations in original) (citations omitted)).\\n\\n In recent years, the Eleventh Circuit addressed this issue at length, extracting a definition\\nof “materials” from the FLSA by considering the plain language of the statute, legislative\\nhistory, and the DOL’s interpretation. Polycarpe, 616 F.3d at 1221-27. In its view, courts could\\nnot properly assume that Congress intended to overrule the ultimate-consumer exception\\ncontained in the definition of “goods” with the addition of “materials” to the statute. Doing so, it\\nsaid, would violate a basic principle of statutory interpretation by not giving effect to all the\\nwords in the statute. Id. at 1222-23.\\n\\n The court thus considered two ordinary definitions of “materials” potentially applicable\\nin the FLSA context and adopted one for purposes of the handling clause:\\n\\n One definition views “materials” as the “apparatus (as tools or other articles)\\n necessary for doing or making something.” A second definition defines\\n “materials” as “the basic matter (as metal, wood, plastic, fiber) from which the\\n whole or the greater part of something physical (as a machine, tool, building,\\n fabric) is made.” Looking only to the word’s ordinary meaning, it seems that\\n “materials” as used in the FLSA could potentially include items used in\\n performing actions or services (e.g. describing pen and paper as “writing\\n materials”), items that serve as a component of something else, or both.\\n But precisely determining the correct ordinary meaning of “materials” for the\\n FLSA is challenging because the FLSA’s statutory definition of “goods” is so\\n expansive, ostensibly including some items that could also fall under the ordinary\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n meaning of “materials.” Much of the FLSA’s definition of “goods” is comprised,\\n it seems, of synonyms for items sold by a business: “goods . . . , wares, products,\\n commodities, merchandise, or articles . . . .” But Congress’s expressed definition\\n for “goods” also includes “or any part or ingredient thereof.” The plain text of\\n this last phrase indicates to us that, of the two ordinary meanings that we\\n identified for “materials,” the second one—the one involving constituent parts—\\n overlaps with part of the statutory definition of “goods.”\\n We must interpret the FLSA in a way that Congress’s 1974 addition of the words\\n “or materials” does not impliedly repeal the unchanged “goods” definition or that\\n definition’s ultimate-consumer exception. Therefore, we believe that the most\\n accurate view of Congress’s intent for the interplay between “goods” and\\n “materials” in the FLSA—one that does not impliedly repeal some of the statutory\\n definition of “goods”—is to read “materials” in the FLSA this way: “materials” in\\n the FLSA means tools or other articles necessary for doing or making\\n something. We believe that this interpretation is true to the ordinary meaning of\\n “materials” and avoids conflict with the statutory “goods” definition.\\n\\nId. at 1223-24 (alteration in original) (internal citations and footnote omitted). The court also\\nexplained that to be considered “materials,” an item “must have a significant connection with the\\nemployer’s commercial activity; the business may not just somehow internally and incidentally\\nconsume the item.” Id. at 1226. “This requirement,” the court reasoned, “is compelled because\\nthe statute covers not all ‘goods’ and ‘materials,’ but only ‘goods’ and ‘materials’ that a\\ncompany is engaged in ‘handling, selling, or otherwise working on.’” Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C.\\n§ 203(s)(1)(A)(i)).\\n\\n Polycarpe cautioned that the same items could be goods in one case, materials in another,\\nand neither goods nor materials in still another case, depending on the use of the item in the\\ncontext of each case. “Where a catering business uses the china plates at a client’s banquet, the\\nplates count as part of the ‘materials’ necessary for serving a catered meal. But, where a\\ndepartment store sells the same china plates as stand-alone items, the plates count as ‘goods’ for\\nthat retailer.” Id. Those same plates hung as decorations on the lobby wall of an accounting\\nfirm, however, constitute neither goods nor materials “because the plates have no significant\\nconnection to the business’s accounting work.” Id.\\n\\n We find the reasoning of Polycarpe persuasive because it gives effect to “materials”\\nwithout totally overlapping with the statutory definition of “goods” and thus displacing the\\nultimate-consumer exception contained within that definition. See Walker v. Bain, 257 F.3d 660,\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n667 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Every word in the statute is presumed to have meaning, and we must give\\neffect all the words to avoid an interpretation which would render words superfluous or\\nredundant.” (citations omitted)); see also Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 524 (1987)\\n(“[R]epeals by implication are not favored and will not be found unless an intent to repeal is\\nclear and manifest.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).\\n\\n Applying the definition of “materials” from Polycarpe, the logging and harvesting\\nequipment used by Timberline’s employees plainly constitute “materials” because the equipment\\nis necessary to cut down trees and transport the timber, which in turn have a significant\\nconnection to Timberline’s commercial activities of harvesting and selling timber.\\n\\n Defendants disagree with Polycarpe’s analysis, arguing that it erroneously “relied upon a\\nsimple alternate definition” of “materials” rather than other definitions that would be “more\\nconsistent with the language of the FLSA,” such as “constituent parts of a whole, or elements of\\nsomething else,” or the “material components that make up” “the thing being produced by the\\nenterprise.” (Reply at 1, 3-4.) However, Defendants’ proffered definition of “materials” has not\\nbeen adopted by other circuits; and because “goods” includes in its definition “any part or\\ningredient [of goods],” 29 U.S.C. § 203(i), Defendants’ definition would render both terms\\nredundant.\\n\\n Defendants also argue that Polycarpe’s definition of “materials” is limited to items\\nprovided by an employer to its customers or “incorporated into products as part of the defendant\\nemployer’s services, such as paint used by a construction company, shutter blades for a window\\nshutter manufacturer, [or] burglar alarms installed by a security company.” (Appellants’ Br. at\\n13.) Defendants read Polycarpe too narrowly. Polycarpe remanded all but one of the cases9 to\\nthe district court to determine whether the items at issue were moved in or produced for interstate\\ncommerce and, if so, whether those items constitute “goods” or “materials.” 616 F.3d at 1229.\\nSome of the items at issue in Polycarpe are analogous to the logging and harvesting equipment\\nin this case, such as lawnmowers, edgers, and trucks used by a landscaping company. Id. at\\n1228. On remand, the district court held that the landscaping company was a covered enterprise\\n\\n 9Polycarpe affirmed one judgment in one case in favor of the defendants because the evidence at trial did\\nnot establish that the business met the volume requirement of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(ii). 616 F.3d at 1229.\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nbecause the trucks it used were “materials” rather than “goods.” Polycarpe v. E & S\\nLandscaping Serv., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2011).\\n\\n Finally, under these facts, we need not extensively address Defendants’ argument that\\nfinding FLSA coverage in this case would “effectively erase the commerce requirement\\nnecessary for FLSA jurisdiction” because “[e]very business uses computers made overseas, or\\npencils and pens made out of state.” (Appellants’ Br. at 14.) As an initial matter, the parties\\npoint to no case where the DOL has attempted to enforce the statute in this manner. Further, the\\ncourt in Polycarpe was apparently concerned with expanding coverage in this way and offered\\nreasonable bases to reject any attempt to do so. First, the court noted that the terms, “handling,\\nselling, or otherwise working on” “denote a connection to the employer’s . . . commercial\\nactivity,” such that mere internal and incidental consumption of an item would not suffice to\\nqualify. 616 F.3d at 1226. Second, it explained that DOL regulations instruct that employees\\nmust handle or work on the goods or materials “regularly and recurrently” for enterprise\\ncoverage to attach. Id. at 1226 n.7 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 779.238). Regardless, coverage here is\\nnot premised on employees’ incidental use of office items; rather, it is premised on employees’\\nregular and recurrent use of logging and harvesting equipment that is used to carry out the\\ncompany’s commercial activity of harvesting timber.\\n\\n Accordingly, the district court correctly found that Timberline is a covered enterprise\\nunder the FLSA’s handling clause.\\n\\n B. Motor Carrier Act Exemption\\n\\n Next, Defendants challenge the district court’s determination that Timberline’s truck\\ndrivers and their helpers are not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions pursuant to\\n29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), which exempts from coverage “any employee with respect to whom the\\nSecretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service\\npursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of Title 49.” The Motor Carrier Act (MCA) provides\\nthat the “Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for” “(1) qualifications and\\nmaximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor\\ncarrier”; and “(2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\nequipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.” 49 U.S.C.\\n§ 31502(b). “Motor carrier” is defined as a “person who provides motor vehicle transportation\\nfor compensation.” 49 U.S.C. § 13102(14). Defendants do not contend that Timberline is a\\nmotor carrier. Rather, Defendants argue that Timberline is a “motor private carrier,” defined as a\\nperson who transports property or goods in interstate commerce. 49 U.S.C. § 13102(15).\\nConsistent with these statutory definitions, this court has previously explained that “[t]he MCA\\n. . . gives the Secretary of Transportation ‘the authority to regulate the hours of an employee\\n(1) who works for a private motor carrier that provides transportation in interstate commerce and\\n(2) whose work activities affect the safety of operation of that motor carrier.’” Vaughn v.\\nWatkins Motor Lines, Inc., 291 F.3d 900, 904 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Troutt v. Stavola Bros.,\\nInc., 107 F.3d 1104, 1106-07 (4th Cir. 1997)).\\n\\n The employer bears the burden of proving that it qualifies for a claimed exemption.\\nMartin v. Ind. Mich. Power Co., 381 F.3d 574, 578 (6th Cir. 2004). We give FLSA exemptions\\na fair, rather than a narrow, reading. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134, 1142\\n(2018).\\n\\n Defendants argue that some of Timberline’s employees are exempt from coverage\\nbecause Timberline’s trucks are operated under U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)\\nregistration numbers and its drivers maintain commercial driver’s licenses, which they say are\\nsufficient bases to find that the MCA exemption applies. In support of this argument,\\nDefendants cite Finn v. Dean Transportation, Inc., 53 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (M.D. Tenn. 2014). In\\nFinn, the district court held that a company was a motor private carrier where its drivers\\ntransported ten percent of its goods in interstate commerce. Id. at 1056-57. In response to the\\nemployee’s argument that the MCA exemption should not apply because the DOT had never\\nexercised its authority to audit the company or to conduct roadside stops, the district court stated\\nthat “Finn’s concession that the DOT had ‘some regulatory authority’ over his work as a driver\\nis, standing alone, dispositive of this issue.” Id. at 1057. The district court then noted that the\\ndriver “admits that he was required to hold a CDL, that DTI has a DOT registration number, that\\nDTI was subject to DOT audit, that its vehicles could be stopped for inspection at any time, and\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\nthat DTI drivers were required to undergo a yearly physical (for which DTI paid).” Id. at 1057-\\n58.\\n\\n Defendants read too much into Finn. Finn was exempt because his employer met the\\ndefinition of a motor private carrier and was therefore subject to DOT regulation. Id. at 1055-56.\\nWe have previously rejected an argument that the mere issuance of a certificate by the Interstate\\nCommerce Commission (which regulated motor carriers prior to the DOT) was sufficient to\\nbring employees within the MCA exemption when those employees drove only intrastate routes.\\nSee Baird v. Wagoner Transp. Co., 425 F.2d 407, 413 (6th Cir. 1970); see also Mazzarella v.\\nFast Rig Support, LLC, 823 F.3d 786, 792 (3d Cir. 2016) (“The DOT certificate merely\\nauthorizes Defendants to engage in interstate transportation. It provides no information about\\nwhether Defendants’ drivers actually drove across state lines or otherwise engaged in interstate\\ncommerce.”).\\n\\n The dispositive inquiry here is not whether Timberline’s employees held commercial\\ndriver’s licenses or whether its trucks had DOT registration numbers; rather, the dispositive\\ninquiry is whether Timberline’s drivers transport goods in interstate commerce, thus rendering\\nTimberline a motor private carrier. 49 U.S.C. § 13102(15); Vaughn, 291 F.3d at 904. Courts\\nhave consistently interpreted this to mean that drivers must travel or transport the goods across\\nstate lines, or transport the goods in a “‘practical continuity of movement’ across State lines from\\nthe point of origin to the point of departure.” 29 C.F.R. 782.7(b)(1) (quoting Walling v.\\nJacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 568 (1943)); see also Baird, 425 F.2d at 413; Goldberg v.\\nFaber Indus., Inc., 291 F.2d 232, 234 (7th Cir. 1961). Here, it is undisputed that Timberline’s\\ntruck drivers did not cross state lines.\\n\\n Defendants nevertheless argue that Timberline’s drivers transport goods in “a practical\\ncontinuity of movement” in interstate commerce because its timber “is an ingredient in the goods\\nmanufactured by the mills to which it is delivered.” (Appellants’ Br. at 22.) Defendants,\\nhowever, presented no evidence that their timber was eventually shipped in interstate commerce\\nby the mills. To the contrary, Payne’s affidavit stated that Timberline has “no control over what\\nis done with the timber delivered to the mills, nor do we know the eventual destination or use of\\nthat timber.” (R. 19-3, PID 2080.) Further, even if the timber was used by the mills to make\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\nother products, such as paper, and then shipped across state lines, the fact that the timber was\\naltered before crossing state lines weighs against finding the MCA exemption applicable. See\\nMazzarella, 823 F.3d at 791-93 (citing Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars, Ltd., 589 F.3d 895, 897\\n(7th Cir. 2009)) (in considering whether drivers who transported water to hydraulic fracking sites\\nwithin Pennsylvania were subject to MCA exemption, “whether the water is altered during the\\nfracking process” would be relevant in determining whether there was a practical continuity of\\nmovement in interstate commerce; MCA exemption did not apply because the defendant\\nproduced no evidence concerning this or other relevant matters).\\n\\n Absent any evidence that Timberline’s drivers crossed state lines or transported goods as\\npart of a practical continuity of movement in interstate commerce, the district court correctly\\nfound that none of Timberline’s employees was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements\\nunder the MCA exemption.\\n\\n C. Damages\\n\\n 1. Briefing Before the District Court\\n\\n Three rounds of briefing occurred before the district court granted summary judgment on\\ndamages. In the Secretary’s original summary judgment brief, Investigator Wrona estimated that\\nTimberline owed unpaid overtime of $468,595.80 for 50 employees. Wrona explained that he\\nprimarily relied on Timberline’s payroll records to calculate unpaid overtime. However, because\\nTimberline lacked hours-worked records for some employees, Wrona had to use other methods\\nto reconstruct the hours those employees worked. Defendants argued in part that in extrapolating\\nhours worked from the employees’ pay records, the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.\\n§ 254(a), required a reduction in the number of hours for the time employees spent on meals and\\nin traveling to and from their homes to their workplaces—hours for which the employees were\\npaid, but which do not count as work. After the original summary judgment briefing, the district\\ncourt rejected Defendants’ argument that the Portal-to-Portal Act required such a reduction,\\nfinding that Defendants had an established custom or practice of compensating for such time.\\nThe district court also ordered supplemental briefing to clarify inconsistencies in the record and\\nto provide requested information in a specific format.\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\n In the Secretary’s first supplemental brief, he calculated revised unpaid overtime to be\\n$454,684.73 for the 50 employees. The Secretary explained that 43 out of the 50 employees\\nwere paid an hourly rate for their entire employment, and because Defendants kept records of\\ntheir hours worked, “[c]omputing overtime for these employees is a simple case of arithmetic\\nbased upon Defendants’ own records.” (R. 38, PID 3725-26.) The Secretary explained that he\\ncomputed back wages for the remaining seven employees without complete hours-worked\\nrecords by: “(1) averaging the number of hours similarly situated employees worked per week or\\n(2) averaging the number of hours individual employees worked each workweek based upon\\ntime records previously kept for each employee prior to Defendants changing the employee\\ncompensation to non-hourly and ceas[ing] keeping the required records.” (Id. at PID 3726.) The\\nSecretary also presented voluminous data showing how he arrived at the calculated unpaid\\novertime. Defendants argued in response that the calculations performed by the Secretary for the\\nnon-hourly employees lacked credibility because the calculations guessed at hours worked and\\npay rate, contained errors, and led to absurd results because Defendants presented evidence that\\ntheir employees were paid significantly more than the industry average.\\n\\n The district court noted certain discrepancies that required additional briefing but also\\nrejected many of Defendants’ arguments that the data was inflated and that industry-aggregate\\ndata should be used instead. It reasoned that “Defendants simply reassert their overarching\\nargument that their compensation scheme resulted in compensation that far exceeded industry\\naverages and, therefore, that they should be excused from their obligations under the FLSA\\novertime provisions. They cite no authority for this proposition.” (R. 43, PID 4187.) The\\ndistrict court also noted that Defendants were critiquing the Secretary’s “methodology largely by\\ncherry picking particular workweeks with unusually high gross wages or unusually low gross\\nwages” and were essentially attacking “the statistical concept of an average.” (Id. at PID 4188.)\\n\\n In the Secretary’s second supplemental brief regarding damages, the Secretary addressed\\nthe district court’s identified concerns and recalculated unpaid overtime to $445,533.49, which\\nreflected a change of unpaid overtime for three non-hourly employees and one hourly employee.\\nDefendants responded by arguing that the Secretary’s third attempt still contained errors, which\\nthey said evidenced a total lack of credibility in the Secretary’s calculations, and thus the district\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\ncourt should award no damages or use the industry-aggregate data to determine unpaid overtime.\\nThey also reasserted their argument that the award should be reduced due to compensation for\\ncommute and meal time.\\n\\n The district court made reductions to the Secretary’s claimed unpaid overtime to address\\nerrors identified by Defendants, but otherwise rejected Defendants’ arguments. The district court\\nawarded damages for unpaid overtime of $439,437.42, and an equal amount in liquidated\\ndamages.\\n\\n 2. Arguments on Appeal\\n\\n On appeal, Defendants appear to make two legal arguments. First, Defendants argue that\\nthe district court erred in not applying the Portal-to-Portal Act to reduce overtime owed by the\\ntime the employees spent during meals and traveling to and from work. Second, Defendants\\nargue that because each of the Secretary’s calculations of overtime contained errors and\\ninconsistences, the Secretary failed to meet his burden to prove damages, and the district court\\nshould have entered an award of no damages or ordered that industry-aggregate data be used to\\narrive at a just and reasonable damages amount.\\n\\n 3. Analysis\\n\\n The Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 254, provides in part:\\n\\n (a) Activities not compensable\\n Except as provided in subsection (b), no employer shall be subject to any liability\\n or punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 . . . on account of the\\n failure of such employer to pay an employee minimum wages, or to pay an\\n employee overtime compensation, for or on account of any of the following\\n activities of such employee . . .\\n\\n (1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of\\n performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is\\n employed to perform, and\\n (2) activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal\\n activity or activities,\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\n which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such\\n employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at\\n which he ceases, such principal activity or activities. . . .\\n\\n (b) Compensability by contract or custom\\n Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) which relieve an employer from\\n liability and punishment with respect to any activity, the employer shall not be so\\n relieved if such activity is compensable by . . .\\n ....\\n (2) a custom or practice in effect, at the time of such activity, at the\\n establishment or other place where such employee is employed, covering\\n such activity, not inconsistent with a written or nonwritten contract, in\\n effect at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or\\n collective-bargaining representative and his employer.\\n (c) Restriction on activities compensable under contract or custom\\n For the purposes of subsection (b), an activity shall be considered as compensable\\n under such contract provision or such custom or practice only when it is engaged\\n in during the portion of the day with respect to which it is so made compensable.\\n\\n (d) Determination of time employed with respect to activities\\n In the application of the minimum wage and overtime compensation provisions of\\n the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, of the Walsh-Healey Act, or\\n of the Bacon-Davis Act, in determining the time for which an employer employs\\n an employee with respect to walking, riding, traveling, or other preliminary or\\n postliminary activities described in subsection (a) of this section, there shall be\\n counted all that time, but only that time, during which the employee engages in\\n any such activity which is compensable within the meaning of subsections (b) and\\n (c) of this section.\\n\\n The district court held after the initial summary judgment briefing that Defendants had a\\ncustom or practice of paying for non-compensable time such as travel and meal time and\\nreasoned that this time must be included in determining hours worked and overtime owed\\npursuant to the Portal-to-Portal Act. After the initial summary judgment briefing, Defendants\\nsubmitted affidavits from five employees, which they argued showed “some, but not necessarily\\nall, employees who did not agree or understand that these hours would be included as hours\\nworked or for overtime.” (R. 41, PID 4115.) These affidavits stated that the employee “was\\npaid for driving to and from the worksite, but [he] did not have an agreement or understanding\\nthat this time would be included in any calculation of overtime.” (See, e.g., R. 41-12, PID\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\n4167.)10 The affidavits also stated that the employee “took a half-hour lunch when [he] could fit\\nit in” and that the employee included “drive time and lunch time in total hours.” (Id.)\\n\\n Although the plain language of the Portal-to-Portal Act suggests that home-to-work\\ncommutes are deemed compensable if the employer has a custom or practice of compensating for\\nsuch work, 29 C.F.R. § 785.34 explains that “ordinary travel from home to work (see § 785.35)\\nneed not be counted as hours worked even if the employer agrees to pay for it.” And, 29 C.F.R.\\n§ 785.35 says plainly that “[n]ormal travel from home to work is not worktime.” The reason is\\nthat the FLSA only requires overtime compensation for “actual work or employment,” Tenn.\\nCoal, Iron & R. Co., 321 U.S. at 597, “[a]nd even where there is a contract, custom, or practice\\nto pay for time spent in such a ‘preliminary’ or ‘postliminary’ activity, section 4(d) of the Portal\\nAct does not make such time hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act, if it would not\\nbe so counted under the latter Act alone,” 29 C.F.R. § 790.7; see also id. § 790.5 (“But where,\\napart from the Portal Act, time spent in such an activity would not be time worked within the\\nmeaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, although made compensable by contract, custom, or\\npractice, such compensability will not make it time worked under section 4(d) of the Portal\\nAct.”)11 “The general rule . . . is and always has been that the FLSA does not treat ordinary\\nhome-to-job-site travel as compensable.” Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352, 360 (2d\\nCir. 2011). The same is true of “bona fide meal periods.” 29 C.F.R. § 785.19; see also Ruffin v.\\nMotorCity Casino, 775 F.3d 807, 811-15 (6th Cir. 2015) (examining whether meal periods were\\ncompensable under the FLSA as “work”).\\n\\n Although it does not appear that any other circuit court has addressed this issue, district\\ncourts have held that ordinary home-to-work and work-to-home commute time does not qualify\\nas “work” under the FLSA even if the employer has paid for such time, and therefore that time is\\n\\n\\n 10Other employees submitted declarations indicating that their timecards did not include commute time and\\nthat they usually did not take a bona fide meal break.\\n 11A different regulation suggests that where there is an agreement between the parties to treat non-\\ncompensable time, such as bona fide meal time, as “work” that is subject to the overtime requirements of the FLSA,\\nthat time would be included as “work” in the calculation of unpaid overtime. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.320. However,\\nthe district court did not rely on any agreement between the parties, and neither party briefs this issue on appeal.\\nRather, the district court focused only on whether Defendants had a custom or practice of paying for commute and\\nlunch time, not whether there was an agreement to treat the time as hours worked under the FLSA.\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\nnot subject to overtime requirements. See Pietrzycki v. Heights Tower Serv., Inc., 290 F. Supp.\\n3d 822, 835 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (“In other words, a custom, practice, or contract of paying for\\nordinary home-to-work commuting cannot make that travel time into hours worked if it would\\nnot have been characterized as such before Congress passed the PPA.”); Shearer v. Edger\\nAssocs. Inc., No. 8:14-CV-2689-T-27JSS, 2015 WL 9274928, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2015)\\n(“As discussed, Defendants’ policy to compensate Shearer for her commute time from home to\\nthe first work site and from the last work site home does not make those hours ‘worked’ for\\npurposes of the FLSA.”); Gilmer v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dist., No. C 08-05186 CW,\\n2010 WL 289299, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2010) (“Thus, the exceptions to the Portal Act do not\\nrender compensable time that would not otherwise have been compensable under the FLSA. . . .\\nAccordingly, Plaintiffs’ start-end travel time, even if they were paid for it, would not be included\\nin computing their hours worked for overtime purposes if it were considered travel from work to\\nhome.”); Johnson v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, 554 F. Supp. 2d 693, 707 (E.D. Tex. 2007)\\n(“A review of the applicable regulations and case law on this issue leads the court to conclude\\nthat, because the travel at issue in this case was ordinary home-to-work travel, such travel did not\\nqualify as hours worked, even if RGIS had a custom or practice of paying for it.”).\\n\\n The regulations and district court cases applying them are persuasive and a reasonable\\ninterpretation of the statutes. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944) (“[R]ulings,\\ninterpretations and opinions of the Administrator under this Act, while not controlling upon the\\ncourts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to\\nwhich courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance. The weight of such a judgment in a\\nparticular case will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its\\nreasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give\\nit power to persuade, if lacking power to control.”). Accordingly, we adopt their interpretation.\\n\\n Here, the district court determined that ordinary commute time and meal time that was\\nincluded in Defendants’ records qualified as compensable hours under the FLSA and, therefore,\\nthe court did not determine, and the Secretary did not calculate, the amount of ordinary commute\\ntime and bona fide meal time included in the records used to calculate unpaid overtime. This\\nwas error. Any ordinary commute and bona fide meal time that can be established must not be\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\nincluded in determining how many hours of overtime each employee worked, although\\nDefendants may not use the amounts paid for those otherwise non-compensable work periods as\\nan offset against the amounts owed. See Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp., 370 F.3d 901, 913\\n(9th Cir. 2004); Reich v. Lucas Enterprises, Inc., 2 F.3d 1151 (6th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we\\nvacate the grant of summary judgment on damages and remand for further proceedings.12\\n\\n Given our disposition of this issue, we need not address Defendants’ remaining\\narguments on damages. However, in the interest of judicial economy, we note that the district\\ncourt was correct in rejecting Defendants’ argument that “industry aggregate data” should be\\nused to determine unpaid overtime rather than Defendants’ payroll records. Defendants’\\nproposed calculation method focuses not on the employees’ actual rate, see 29 U.S.C. § 207\\n(requiring employers to pay an employee “not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at\\nwhich he is employed” for hours worked over 40 in a workweek (emphasis added)), but rather\\nthe rate at which other employees at different companies with potentially vastly different job\\nduties and experience are paid. Because there is no support for applying this methodology, the\\ndistrict court correctly rejected this argument at the summary-judgment stage. See Acosta v. Off\\nDuty Police Servs., Inc., 915 F.3d 1050, 1065 (6th Cir. 2019) (“The reasonableness of the DOL’s\\nproposed calculation depends in part on the availability of other, more reasonable alternatives to\\nthat proposal. . . . Although the calculation adopted by the district court may be imprecise, it is\\nthe best method available in light of ODPS’s failure to maintain accurate and complete\\nrecords.”).\\n\\n D. Liquidated Damages\\n\\n The FLSA provides that “[a]ny employer who violates [the FLSA’s minimum wage or\\novertime provisions] shall be liable to the employee or employees affected” in the amount of the\\nunpaid overtime compensation “and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.”\\n\\n\\n 12The Secretary argued to the district court that even if Defendants’ employees’ travel time and lunch\\nbreaks were included in the recorded hours, Defendants did not meet their burden to negate the reasonableness of the\\nSecretary’s damages computations, that there was an agreement to treat these hours as hours worked, and that\\nDefendants did not establish that the travel time did not constitute work time or that their employees received bona\\nfide meal breaks. The district court did not address any of these arguments, and the Secretary does not argue these\\nalternative bases for affirmance on appeal. Accordingly, we leave these issues to the district court.\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\n29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Despite the mandatory wording of that section, Congress has authorized\\ndistrict courts to reduce or decline to award liquidated damages under the FLSA “if the employer\\nshows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in\\ngood faith and that [the employer] had reasonable grounds for believing that [the] act or\\nomission was not a violation of the” FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 260. “This burden on the employer is\\nsubstantial and requires ‘proof that [the employer’s] failure to obey the statute was both in good\\nfaith and predicated upon such reasonable grounds that it would be unfair to impose upon [it]\\nmore than a compensatory verdict.’” Elwell v. Univ. Hosps. Home Care Servs., 276 F.3d 832,\\n840 (6th Cir. 2002) (alterations in original) (quoting McClanahan v. Mathews, 440 F.2d 320, 322\\n(6th Cir. 1971)).\\n\\n “To prove that it acted in good faith, an employer ‘must show that [it] took affirmative\\nsteps to ascertain the Act’s requirements, but nonetheless violated its provisions.’” Martin v.\\nInd. Mich. Power Co., 381 F.3d 574, 584–85 (6th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting\\nMartin v. Cooper Elec. Supply Co., 940 F.2d 896, 908 (3d. Cir. 1991)). Establishing that the\\nemployer did not willfully misclassify an employee is insufficient to show good faith. Id. (citing\\nElwell, 276 F.3d at 841 n.5). Rather, “[t]he employer has an affirmative duty to ascertain and\\nmeet the FLSA’s requirements, and an employer who negligently misclassifies an employee as\\nexempt is not acting in good faith.” Id. (citing Elwell, 276 F.3d at 841 n.5)\\n\\n Defendants argue that because Payne reasonably and in good faith relied on his\\naccountant’s advice that logging companies are exempt from the overtime provisions of the\\nFLSA, the district court erred in concluding that it had no discretion to decline to award or to\\nreduce the liquidated damages. Defendants further argue that Timberline’s pay structure\\nresulting in higher-than-average compensation for its employees makes an award of liquidated\\ndamages particularly unjust.\\n\\n Defendants have not presented sufficient evidence to meet their substantial burden to\\nprove both good faith and reasonable grounds for the incorrect classification. As to the drivers,\\nshop workers, and office workers, Payne himself testified that he knew these employees were not\\nagricultural workers. Although Payne attempted to justify exempting his drivers and shop\\nworkers under the MCA exemption, Payne never sought advice for this decision or took any\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\nother active steps to inform himself regarding this determination. Further, he acknowledged that\\nhis drivers never crossed state lines, and he was not able to explain any reasonable grounds he\\nmay have had for determining that the MCA exemption applied to purely intrastate drivers.\\nThus, Defendants have not met their substantial burden to prove both good faith and reasonable\\ngrounds for the incorrect classification of Timberline’s drivers, shop workers, and office\\nworkers.\\n\\n Defendants’ employees performing harvesting and logging duties present a closer\\nquestion. Taking Payne’s testimony as true, he talked to Rooyakker on several occasions about\\nwhether the agricultural exemption applied. Although caselaw usually cites discussions with\\nattorneys or government officials as evidence of good faith, see, e.g., Elwell, 276 F.3d at 841\\n(“Nor has University suggested that it was relying on the expertise or opinion of any other person\\nor entity with knowledge of the FLSA regulations, including its attorney or the Department of\\nLabor.”); Featsent v. City of Youngstown, 70 F.3d 900, 906-07 (6th Cir. 1995); Steele v. Leasing\\nEnterprises, Ltd., 826 F.3d 237, 246-47 (5th Cir. 2016), some cases have extended this rationale\\nto accountants, see Copantitla v. Fiskardo Estiatorio, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d 253, 316-17\\n(S.D.N.Y. 2011). However, several undisputed facts weigh against finding that Defendants\\ncould meet their burden here. First, Payne knew that Rooyakker’s advice was flawed or\\nincomplete, at least with respect to truck drivers and office workers. Second, Payne never\\ndiscussed any of his employees’ duties with Rooyakker such that Payne could reasonably believe\\nthat Rooyakker was advising that specific employees were exempt. And third, Rooyakker did\\nnot hold himself out as an expert in FLSA matters, and indeed never provided anyone else with\\nadvice on such matters.\\n\\n Further, Defendants do not attempt to explain on appeal how a determination that any of\\ntheir employees fell under the agricultural exemption was reasonable. The district court\\nsummarily rejected that the agricultural exemption applied; Defendants do not raise this issue on\\nappeal; and Defendants’ briefing regarding liquidated damages focuses primarily on the MCA\\nexemption. Under these circumstances, Payne’s general discussions with Rooyakker are\\ninsufficient as a matter of law for Defendants to meet their heavy burden to prove both good\\nfaith and reasonable grounds for the incorrect classification. See Doty v. Elias, 733 F.2d 720,\\n\\f No. 18-1763 SOL v. Timberline South, et al. Page 25\\n\\n\\n726 (10th Cir. 1984) (finding that advice of an accountant that compensation scheme was legal\\neight to ten years prior to trial was insufficient to meet employer’s burden where the employer\\n“never sought an opinion from an attorney or the relevant government agency regarding the\\nlegality of” the compensation scheme and did not read government literature regarding wage and\\nhour laws).\\n\\n Finally, as the district court explained, Defendants’ argument that they compensated their\\nemployees above the industry average is irrelevant to whether they met their burden to establish\\ngood faith and reasonable grounds for the determination that Timberline’s employees were\\nexempt from overtime coverage. If they had established both of those prongs, the district court\\ncould consider the overall compensation in the exercise of its discretion in awarding liquidated\\ndamages. But having failed to meet their burden, this argument is misplaced.\\n\\n Accordingly, the district court correctly held that it had no discretion to award liquidated\\ndamages in an amount less than the amount of unpaid overtime compensation. See 29 U.S.C.\\n§ 216(b). However, because the amount of unpaid overtime compensation owed may change\\nafter further proceedings, we vacate the amount awarded for liquidated damages and remand for\\nrecalculation after further proceedings.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n For the reasons stated, we affirm the grant of summary judgment as to liability, including\\non the issue of liquidated damages, vacate the award of damages, and remand for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2096,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4624849,"string":"4,624,849"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Gerald Daneshvar"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-30"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1101"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: SILER, COOK, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0109p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-1101\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n GERALD DANESHVAR, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:15-cr-20362-1—Avern Cohn, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: April 29, 2019*\\n\\n Before: SILER, COOK, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Elizabeth L. Jacobs, Steven Fishman, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Andrew\\nGoetz, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. In the old days, every doctor made house calls to treat\\npatients. In more recent days, Dr. Gerald Daneshvar made house calls as part of a conspiracy to\\ncommit Medicare fraud.\\n\\n\\n\\n *This decision was originally filed as an unpublished opinion on April 29, 2019. The court has now\\ndesignated the opinion for publication.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 2\\n\\n\\n Daneshvar’s conspiracy lasted from 2012 to approximately 2013, during his time at a\\ncompany called Mobile Doctors. Ultimately, Daneshvar was charged with one count of a\\nconspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and two counts of healthcare fraud. A jury convicted\\nDaneshvar on the conspiracy count but found him not guilty of the other two counts. Daneshvar\\nwas sentenced to 24 months in prison. This appeal followed.\\n\\n The record demonstrates that Daneshvar’s trial was fair and that none of the district\\ncourt’s rulings during that proceeding should be reversed. Furthermore, we find no reversible\\nerror with his sentencing. We therefore AFFIRM.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n A. Medicare\\n\\n Medicare is a taxpayer-funded healthcare benefit program for persons who are 65 and\\nolder and for those under 65 with disabilities. Typically, a Medicare beneficiary visits a doctor’s\\noffice and Medicare reimburses the doctor for the provided service. Medicare also pays for\\ndoctors’ home visits in certain circumstances; however, house calls cost Medicare more money\\nthan treatment in a doctor’s office. Thus, to qualify for a home visit, a patient must be\\nhomebound, which occurs if the patient has a condition because of an illness or injury that\\nrestricts the patient’s ability to leave his or her place of residence without the aid of a supportive\\ndevice (e.g., cane, wheelchair, etc.). Also, the homebound patient actually must need the\\nphysician’s services.\\n\\n Given the voluminous number of beneficiaries and doctors, Medicare does not review\\neach home healthcare claim. Instead, Medicare relies upon doctors to accurately and honestly\\nbill the services they provide.\\n\\n B. Mobile Doctors\\n\\n In 2003, Dike Ajiri, a non-medical professional, opened Mobile Doctors, headquartered\\nin Chicago. It eventually expanded into seven states, including Michigan, and offered physician\\nservices to homebound Medicare beneficiaries. It hired doctors who agreed to assign their\\nMedicare billing rights to the company. After a home visit, each doctor would fill out a routing\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 3\\n\\n\\nslip describing the patient’s diagnoses using Medicare codes and certifying that a qualified home\\nvisit had occurred. The original of the routing slip stayed with the patient file, while the carbon\\ncopy went to Mobile Doctors, which sought payment from Medicare. Upon receipt of payment,\\nMobile Doctors would then pay the physician-employee a percentage of what the company\\nreceived from billing Medicare.\\n\\n The problem with this business model was that a large portion of Mobile Doctors’s\\npatients, in fact, did not qualify as being homebound. For instance, one doctor saw a supposedly\\nhomebound patient return home carrying groceries. Another patient rescheduled her\\nappointment because she was bowling. Nevertheless, Mobile Doctors’s physicians were\\nundeterred in characterizing such patients as homebound. In some instances, the doctors went\\neven further: they signed certifications for additional unneeded treatment from companies that\\nprovided at-home nursing or physical therapy services—companies that had referred the patients\\nto Mobile Doctors.\\n\\n For many patients, whether legitimately homebound or not, Mobile Doctors exaggerated\\nthe services they needed. For example, Mobile Doctors scheduled each patient for a home visit\\nevery 30 days, regardless of whether it was necessary. At most, only half of these patients\\nneeded the prescribed medical care.\\n\\n Mobile Doctors also engaged in upcoding, a fraudulent practice in which a healthcare\\nprovider submits a Medicare code for a more serious and more expensive diagnosis or procedure\\nthan the provider actually diagnosed or performed. Typically, at each home visit, a doctor met\\nwith a patient for 15 minutes at a minimum. Then, the doctor filled out the routing slip and,\\nregardless of how healthy the patient was, the doctor usually selected only the two most\\nexpensive Medicare reimbursement codes for home healthcare. These top two codes are\\nsupposed to be rare because Medicare limits them to complex visits lasting around an hour and\\nrequiring extensive examination and treatment. But, Mobile Doctors utilized these codes for\\nalmost every doctor’s visit, even visits as short as 10 minutes, which involved no tests or other\\nassessments.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 4\\n\\n\\n In order to justify the higher-reimbursement codes, Mobile Doctors instructed their\\nphysicians to list at least three diagnoses in the patient file; if the doctors did not list enough,\\nthen a staff member added more to meet the three-diagnoses minimum. Typical diagnoses used\\nto pad the claims were conditions that are common to persons over 50 years old: degenerative\\njoint disease, degenerative disk disease, high blood pressure, chronic pain, arthritis, and vitamin\\nD deficiency.\\n\\n Mobile Doctors only paid their physicians if they checked at least one of the top two\\nbilling codes on their routing slips. If the doctor billed for the higher of the top two codes, the\\ndoctor was paid more. And each doctor knew which codes paid the most. Every two weeks,\\nphysicians received a pay chart detailing the pay for all doctors at the company. The pay chart\\ndetailed the number of patients the physician visited per code, and how much Mobile Doctors\\npaid for that particular code.\\n\\n Mobile Doctors also encouraged their physicians to order diagnostic tests at specific\\nintervals and required baseline laboratory tests either once or twice per year, whether the patients\\nneeded the tests or not. This testing was authorized by a “standing order” that Mobile Doctors\\nrequired its physicians to sign even though Medicare prohibits testing ordered pursuant to\\nstanding orders. But Mobile Doctors thought otherwise: A doctor received bonuses from Mobile\\nDoctors based, in part, on how many tests were authorized under that doctor’s name pursuant to\\nthe standing order.\\n\\n C. Daneshvar’s Involvement with Mobile Doctors\\n\\n In September 2012, Dr. Gerald Daneshvar1 joined Mobile Doctors as a physician in its\\nMichigan office. He enrolled with Medicare, signed over his Medicare billing privileges to\\nMobile Doctors, and certified that he would abide by the rules set forth by Medicare and would\\nnot submit false claims.\\n\\n Daneshvar then began conducting home visits. In return, for submitting his routing slips,\\nhe received payment from Mobile Doctors along with a pay chart detailing the pay for each\\n\\n\\n 1\\n Daneshvar is referred to as “Dr. Gerry” in some of the trial exhibits and testimony.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 5\\n\\n\\nphysician per patient visit and Medicare code. But, Daneshvar later confessed that\\napproximately 30 percent of his patients that he certified as homebound were, in fact, not so.\\nAnd, according to one medical assistant, Robin Johnson, the fraud was even worse: Johnson\\ntestified that as many as half of Daneshvar’s patients were not homebound.\\n\\n In fact, every time medical assistant Danielle Mangan went with Daneshvar for home\\nvisits, there would be at least one patient who was not even at home when they arrived for the\\nvisit. Medical assistant Shannon Guyton had similar experiences with Daneshvar. She testified\\nthat many of the patients could drive or leave their homes without assistance. One of\\nDaneshvar’s patients also testified that she would regularly leave her house for daily activities\\nsuch as going to the store. Another patient cancelled her appointment because “[s]he was getting\\nready to leave,” and yet another was not home because he was “out with his friend.” (Trial Tr.\\nVol. 3, R. 110, Page ID # 951, 988–89.) Once, when medical assistant India Brimberry was\\nconducting home visits with Daneshvar, she saw a patient pull up in his car with bags, returning\\nfrom a store. Another patient, Kevin Barrett, biked regularly and played in his church band.\\nBarrett was honest: he told Daneshvar that he was not homebound. But such honesty did not\\ncarry over to Daneshvar’s Medicare certifications.\\n\\n In the patient charts, Daneshvar would pre-sign forms documenting the face-to-face\\nencounter, because Medicare rules state that a physician needs to make an in-person visit. Then,\\nthe clinical coordinator would fill out the diagnoses based on the routing slip or the exam notes\\nwithin the chart. The forms stated, “I certify that based on my findings the following services\\nare medically necessary home health services. Check all that apply.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 2, R. 109,\\nPage ID # 798.) The form continued, “Further, I certify that my clinical findings support that the\\npatient is homebound (i.e., absences from home require considerable and taxing effort and are\\nfor medical reasons or religion services or infrequently or of short duration . . . for other reasons\\n. . .).” (Id. at Page ID # 799.)\\n\\n Daneshvar not only fraudulently presented patients’ homebound status, but he also\\nreferred his patients to home healthcare agencies for other unneeded services. Daneshvar once\\nadmitted to medical assistant Guyton that one of his patients “didn’t need the [medical] service,\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 6\\n\\n\\nthey weren’t homebound.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 2, R. 109, Page ID # 930.) But, that isolated instance\\nof candor was not indicative of Daneshvar’s practice generally.\\n\\n As it turned out, Daneshvar would conduct the most home visits of any doctor employed\\nby Mobile Doctors. During his employment, he saw almost 4,000 patients, which worked out to\\nbe around 20 patients per day. In order to handle such a large volume, according to several\\nmedical assistants, Daneshvar evaluated the patient in approximately 10 to 15 minutes, shorter in\\nduration than evaluations by other physicians employed by Mobile Doctors. And Daneshvar\\nscheduled every patient for his speedy visit every 30 days, regardless of whether the patient\\nneeded the house call. At each visit, Daneshvar would typically write three to four diagnoses for\\nthe patient on a routing slip; sometimes the clinical coordinator added diagnoses based on the\\npatient chart. Daneshvar even acted as seemingly clairvoyant: he sometimes filled out the\\ndiagnoses before he even met with the patient.\\n\\n After completion of Daneshvar’s home visits, the routing slip was transmitted to the\\nChicago office, where the Mobile Doctors staff engaged in upcoding. (See Trial Tr. Vol. 3, R.\\n109, Page ID # 804 (“Upcode per Dr. Gerry.”).) Daneshvar admitted that “most of his patients\\nwere billed at a 4 or 5 level even though they qualified for 3 or lower.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 5, R. 112,\\nPage ID # 1363.) Sometimes, Daneshvar himself checked a box with the appropriate Medicare\\ncode on the routing slip. Other times, a medical assistant checked the box on Daneshvar’s behalf\\nand placed a copy of the routing slip in the patient file. Daneshvar never disapproved of the\\ncodes on routing slips, and his signature appeared on all of the routing slips for his home visits.\\nMobile Doctors would pay Daneshvar whenever he billed at least one of the top two codes.\\nMobile Doctors also billed Medicare for two or three times the number of hours Daneshvar\\nactually spent with the patient, based upon the routing slip.\\n\\n At one point, Daneshvar asked Dr. Stephen Mason, another Mobile Doctors employee,\\nhow he could make more money. Dr. Mason told him that “[w]e can’t bill any higher than we\\nare already billing. We are billing too high already.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 4, R. 111, Page ID # 1147.)\\nBut there was another way to boost the bottom line—giving injections of medications into the\\npatients’ musculoskeletal systems. Dr. Mason was getting paid extra for every injection. His\\nexperience led Daneshvar to do the same.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 7\\n\\n\\n Along with injections, early-and-often testing was a money-maker. Daneshvar signed the\\nMobile Doctors standing order for testing, which stated:\\n\\n Mobile Doctors Physician Standing Orders Preventative Care. Mobile Doctors\\n actively promotes preventative care and early intervention. A thorough history\\n and physical examination should be obtained on all of our patients along with\\n preventative care. Based on the billable diagnosis for (enter state) Medicare,\\n I give my clinical coordinator permission to order testing on my behalf when\\n warranted.\\n\\n(Trial Tr. Vol. 1, R. 108, Page ID # 712–13; Trial Exs., R. 135, Page ID # 1970.) Pursuant to the\\nstanding order, Mobile Doctors’s staff would sign Daneshvar’s name on testing order forms.\\nThe test results would come back, they would go to Daneshvar, and he would initial the results.\\nDaneshvar never objected when Mobile Doctors’s staff ordered tests on his behalf pursuant to his\\nstanding order.\\n\\n Ultimately, Daneshvar billed Medicare for almost $1.5 million in claims, was paid a\\nsalary of almost $250,000 from Mobile Doctors, and received the highest bonuses of all the\\ndoctors employed by the company. Mobile Doctors rewarded Daneshvar handsomely because\\nhe “does literally anything we ask,” and so “we need to keep him happy.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 4, R.\\n111, Page ID # 1225; Trial Tr. Vol. 5, R. 112, Page ID # 1372–76; Trial Exs., R. 135, Page ID #\\n1976–79.) In June of 2013, Mobile Doctors re-signed Daneshvar’s contract, agreeing to reward\\nhim with a $15,000 bonus. Mobile Doctors also agreed to pay Daneshvar an additional $4 per\\npatient, but only when he billed the two highest codes, which were “the actual levels that\\naffect[ed his] pay.” (Trial Exs., R. 135, Page ID # 1972.)\\n\\n D. Medicare Fraud Investigation\\n\\n Eventually, federal agents caught up with Mobile Doctors. In August 2013, agents\\nexecuted search warrants at all three Mobile Doctors offices, including the Michigan office\\nwhere Daneshvar worked. The same day, two agents interviewed Daneshvar at a coffee shop.\\nDaneshvar admitted that: (1) even though he certified his patients as homebound, approximately\\n30 percent of them were not; (2) he referred patients to home healthcare agencies, including\\nthose patients who were not homebound; (3) most of his patient visits lasted 15 to 20 minutes,\\nallowing him to see 20 patients per day; (4) most patients were billed at “4” and “5,” the two\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 8\\n\\n\\nhighest Medicare codes, and thus, most of his patients were misbilled because they should have\\nbeen billed at a “3” or lower; and (5) his salary from Mobile Doctors was tied to billing codes\\n“4” and “5.”\\n\\n E. The Trial\\n\\n A federal grand jury indicted Daneshvar on one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare\\nfraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and two counts of healthcare fraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1347. The\\ncase proceeded to a jury trial. On May 8, 2017, the jury convicted Daneshvar of Count 1, but\\nfound him not guilty of Counts 2 and 3. Daneshvar filed a motion for a new trial, and the district\\ncourt denied the motion. On January 18, 2018, the court sentenced Daneshvar to 24 months of\\nimprisonment followed by three years of supervised release and a restitution amount of\\n$900,000. Daneshvar timely appealed.\\n\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n\\n Daneshvar raises ten grounds for reversal premised on the following four areas of alleged\\nerror: (1) the district court abused its discretion in excluding certain evidence; (2) the judge\\nimproperly gave two Sixth Circuit criminal pattern jury instructions and one preliminary jury\\ninstruction; (3) the judge should have provided a supplemental instruction to the jury after the\\njury, during its deliberations, posed a question to the court; and (4) the district court abused its\\ndiscretion when sentencing Daneshvar. We address each category in turn.\\n\\n A. Evidentiary Issues\\n\\n We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, which occurred\\nif it made “errors of law or clear errors of factual determination.” United States v. Baker,\\n458 F.3d 513, 517 n.6 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However,\\n“[w]hen a party fails to object to evidence at the trial court, his contention on appeal will prevail\\nonly if the trial court's evidentiary decision was plainly erroneous, thus affecting his substantial\\nrights and resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 517. Here, as in Baker and Peak v.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 9\\n\\n\\nKubota Tractor Corp., 559 F. App’x 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2014), “[t]he decision as to the correct\\nstandard of review will not affect the outcome of this appeal.” Baker, 458 F.3d at 517.2\\n\\n Moreover, even if we were to find that the court incorrectly excluded the evidence, “this\\ndoes not automatically result in a new trial.” United States v. Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d 365, 378 (6th\\nCir. 2015). Exclusion of the evidence must have “materially affect[ed] the verdict.” United\\nStates v. English, 785 F.3d 1052, 1056 (6th Cir. 2015); Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d at 378 (“Non-\\nconstitutional errors are subject to Rule 52(a) harmless error analysis: the government must\\nshow by a preponderance of the evidence that the error did not materially affect the verdict.”\\n(emphasis in original)).\\n\\n i. Admission of the December 27, 2012, Email\\n\\n Daneshvar’s defense was that he was ignorant of the fraud at Mobile Doctors. In support,\\ndefense counsel moved to admit an email chain through Daneshvar’s testimony. The email,\\ndated December 27, 2012, was sent from Melissa Meredith (the branch manager for Mobile\\nDoctors at the Southfield, Michigan office) to Dike Ajiri (Mobile Doctors’s president) stating, in\\npart:\\n\\n [W]e don’t want [the doctors] asking too many questions about billing etc.\\n [L]et[’s] just keep them in the dark, we cover their liability, let us cover ourselves\\n and that’s the end of it! We do not brow beat them with mundane details and we\\n give creative control for the treatment of [patients] unless, it[‘s] something that\\n will harm the [patient] or us. I think we should operate with [standing orders for\\n tests] the same way. They are not stupid, they know we make money off of\\n tests[,] but they also know that it is helping the [patient], that’s why they agree to\\n it.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n Daneshvar argues that the abuse-of-discretion standard does not extend to the exclusion of\\ncrucial, relevant evidence establishing a valid defense. In support, Daneshvar cites to United States v.\\nRiley, 550 F.2d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 1977). Daneshvar misunderstands the holding in Riley. The Fifth\\nCircuit held that, “[a]lthough the trial judge is traditionally accorded a wide range of discretion in the\\nadmission of evidence, it is axiomatic that such discretion does not extend to the exclusion of crucial\\nrelevant evidence establishing a valid defense. Id. at 236 (citation omitted). In other words, the Fifth\\nCircuit held that a district court abuses its discretion if it excludes crucial relevant evidence establishing a\\nvalid defense—not that the abuse-of-discretion standard does not apply.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 10\\n\\n\\n Sometimes too much can be harmful. Where did I hear that before? Oh\\n yeah, it was you!\\n\\n(Trial Exs., R. 118, Page ID # 1700.)\\n\\n On appeal, Daneshvar argues that the district court erred in excluding the email on\\nrelevance and hearsay grounds. We agree with Daneshvar that the email was relevant, see Fed.\\nR. Evid. 401, but we disagree that it was admissible as Daneshvar argues under the business\\nrecord and residual hearsay exceptions, see Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), 807, and the opposing party\\nstatement hearsay exclusion, see Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).\\n\\n a. Relevance\\n\\n First, as to relevance, the district court appeared to indicate that because the government\\nhad already presented evidence demonstrating that Daneshvar knew of the fraudulent billing, the\\nemail exchange discussing keeping doctors in the dark about billing was irrelevant. In other\\nwords, the district judge treated the government’s evidence as conclusively establishing a fact,\\nnotwithstanding any contrary evidence. This ruling was in error. Daneshvar’s counsel sought to\\nintroduce the email to rebut the government’s evidence of the knowledge that the doctors,\\nincluding Daneshvar, had of Mobile Doctors’s billing practices. Therefore, the email had a\\ntendency to make a fact—the doctors’ apparent knowledge of Mobile Doctors’s billing\\npractices—“more or less probable.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. The jury should have been allowed to\\nconsider the email in light of the government’s proof, and then determine what weight to assign\\nto each piece of evidence.\\n\\n We need not resolve, however, whether the district court’s erroneous finding that the\\nemail was irrelevant materially affected the verdict because the district court properly excluded\\nthe email on another ground: hearsay. As explained below, none of the hearsay exceptions or\\nexclusion cited by Daneshvar apply.\\n\\n b. Records of a Regularly Conducted Business Activity\\n\\n Both before the district court and upon appeal, Daneshvar argued that the email is\\nadmissible as a business record. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), a business record\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 11\\n\\n\\nmust have been: (a) made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person\\nwith knowledge; (b) kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity; and (c) made\\nas part of a regular practice of the business. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Moreover, all of these\\nconditions must be shown by the testimony of a qualified witness. Id.\\n\\n An email is not a business record for purposes of the relevant hearsay exception simply\\nbecause it was sent between two employees in a company or because employees regularly\\nconduct business through emails; such evidence alone is insufficient to show that the email is a\\nrecord, made as “a regular practice” of the company, Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(C), and that “the\\nrecord was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business,” id. at 803(6)(B).\\n“[I]t would be insufficient to survive a hearsay challenge simply to say that since a business\\nkeeps and receives e-mails, then ergo all those e-mails are business records falling with the ambit\\nof Rule 803(6)(B).” United States v. Cone, 714 F.3d 197, 220 (4th Cir. 2013). If that were the\\ncase, then every single email sent within any company would fall within the exception. This\\nresult would obviate the entire purpose of the business records exception, which is designed for a\\nlimited category of records—namely those that are regularly produced as a part of a company’s\\nbusiness activities.\\n\\n Of course, an email can qualify as an admissible record of a regularly conducted business\\nactivity as long as the proponent satisfies the requirements of Rule 803(6). But, it was no abuse\\nof discretion for the district court to find that those requirements were not met here. We affirm\\nthe district court’s holding that the email “was not a business record [admissible under Rule\\n803(6)], but rather a form of conversation”—that is, a one-time discussion regarding what to tell\\ndoctors—as this holding was based on no clearly erroneous factual finding or erroneous\\ninterpretation of law. (Op. Denying Mot. for New Trial, R. 86, Page ID # 435.).3\\n\\n c. Residual Hearsay Exception\\n\\n We also find that the district court did not err when declining to admit the email pursuant\\nto the residual clause of the hearsay rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 807. One of the requirements\\n\\n\\n 3\\n Moreover, Daneshvar did not offer a qualified witness to testify concerning the requirements of the\\nbusiness record exception. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(D).\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 12\\n\\n\\nof Rule 807 is that the evidence being offered “is more probative on the point for which it is\\noffered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.” Fed.\\nR. Evid. 807(a)(3). At trial, Daneshvar repeatedly put forth evidence that the company’s doctors\\nwere not made aware of Mobile Doctors’s final billing processes. For instance, Dr. Mason\\ntestified that he was “in the dark” about Mobile Doctors’s billing. (Trial Tr. Vol. 4, R. 111, Page\\nID # 1197.) Physician-employee Dr. Leonard VanGelder likewise testified that he did not have\\nanything to do with actual billing, which was handled by the Chicago office. Daneshvar\\nsimilarly testified in his own defense.\\n\\n The testimony of these witnesses precludes reliance on the residual exception. That is,\\nDaneshvar has not demonstrated that the email is more probative than is the testimony for the\\nfact that the doctors did not know about Mobile Doctors’s billing practices. Daneshvar argues on\\nappeal that the email has more probative value because it was sent by a “neutral” source, rather\\nthan the physicians themselves. However, the jury learned of the actual email, as well as its\\ncontents, during the questioning of Dr. Mason when he was asked, “[W]ere you shown an email\\nfrom Melissa Meredith to Dike Ajiri saying precisely that, I’m not reading it verbatim, but we’re\\ndoing the best we can to keep the doctors in the dark about billing?” (Trial Tr. Vol. 4, R. 111,\\nPage ID # 1196–97.) Thus, Daneshvar’s point—that the company’s management was hiding its\\nbilling practices from the doctors—could have been, and in fact was, made through the witnesses\\nat trial. It was therefore no abuse of discretion for the district court to hold that the email was\\ninadmissible under Rule 807.4\\n\\n d. Co-Conspirator Exclusion\\n\\n For the first time on appeal, Daneshvar also argues that the email is not hearsay because\\nit was a statement made by his co-conspirators, and therefore excluded from the hearsay\\ndefinition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). Daneshvar misapplies this Rule,\\n\\n\\n 4\\n Even if the district court’s exclusion of the email had been in error, it would constitute harmless error. As\\nnoted, the substance of the email was already admitted, through Dr. Mason’s testimony, at trial. See generally\\nUnited States v. Schaeffer, 626 F. App’x 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that “even assuming that [a] letter was\\nadmissible as a statement against interest under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) or under the residual hearsay exception, Fed.\\nR. Evid. 807, the evidence against [the defendant] on the count to which [the] letter related was overwhelming and\\nthe letter offered only weak support to [the defendant’s] case”).\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 13\\n\\n\\nwhich states that “[t]he statement [must be] offered against an opposing party” and must have\\nbeen “made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Fed. R.\\nEvid. 801(d)(2), (d)(2)(E). Daneshvar incorrectly seeks to use his own co-conspirators’\\nstatements on his behalf, not against an opposing party. Moreover, even if Daneshvar were\\nsomehow using the statements against the government, the statements were not made by “[that]\\nparty’s coconspirator”—that is, the statements were not made by the government’s\\ncoconspirators. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Thus, the email does not fall within Rule\\n801(d)(2)(E) and there was no abuse of discretion to exclude it as hearsay by the district court.\\n\\n ii. Admission of Joel Trombley’s and Daneshvar’s Testimony\\n\\n Defense counsel attempted to elicit testimony from both Daneshvar and Joel Trombley\\nregarding Daneshvar’s work at a later employer, the American Health Care Network (AHCN).\\nTrombley was employed as a medical assistant by Mobile Doctors and then worked with\\nDaneshvar at AHCN. Defense counsel attempted to establish that after Daneshvar left Mobile\\nDoctors for AHCN, he became more involved in the billing process, began to scrutinize bills to\\nmake sure they were accurate, and “that once he learned, once he saw what happened he changed\\nhis ways.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 6, R. 113, Page ID # 1437.) The government objected on the grounds\\nof relevance, and the court sustained the objection. The court determined that “how [Daneshvar]\\nconducted himself at a subsequent place of employment is not relevant to the issue in this case”\\nbecause this “case involves what happened with Mobile Doctors.” (Id.)\\n\\n On appeal, Daneshvar argues that he offered the AHCN evidence as “reverse Rule 404(b)\\nevidence.” Daneshvar points out that our circuit has recognized that reverse 404(b) evidence is\\nwhen “the evidence of a prior act by another is offered as exculpatory evidence by the defendant,\\ninstead of being used by a prosecutor against a defendant.” United States v. Lucas, 357 F.3d\\n599, 605 (6th Cir. 2004). However, in Lucas, we held that “the Advisory Committee Notes\\nfollowing Rule 401 explain that rules such as Rule 404 and those that follow it are meant to\\nprohibit certain types of evidence that are otherwise clearly ‘relevant evidence.’” Id. Thus, at\\nthe outset, we must determine whether the evidence is relevant under Rule 401, and if so,\\nwhether it should nonetheless be excluded as improper propensity evidence pursuant to Rule\\n404(b).\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 14\\n\\n\\n We agree with the district court that evidence of Daneshvar’s conduct after he left Mobile\\nDoctors is not relevant, as the fraud and conspiracy at issue occurred only while Daneshvar was\\nat Mobile Doctors. Daneshvar’s post-Mobile Doctors evidence is not that of his potentially\\nexculpatory actions undertaken prior or during the time of the fraud, but rather, pertain to\\nactivities conducted after the fraud ended. Thus, even if Daneshvar employed legal billing\\npractices after his time at Mobile Doctors, that fact does not change or alter the evidence\\npresented regarding his actions while conspiring to commit fraud at Mobile Doctors.\\n\\n Moreover, we have held that “[f]or the same reason that prior ‘bad acts’ may not be used\\nto show a predisposition to commit crimes, prior ‘good acts’ generally may not be used to show a\\npredisposition not to commit crimes.” United States v. Dimora, 750 F.3d 619, 630 (6th Cir.\\n2014). Even considering the merits of Daneshvar’s argument that his post-Mobile Doctors\\nconduct tended to make his lack of intent more probable, which is an acceptable purpose for\\nadmission under Rule 404(b), the evidence of Daneshvar’s future billing practices does not\\nqualify as “reverse 404(b).” Daneshvar’s attention to billing after he left Mobile Doctors is not\\n“evidence of a prior act by another,” Lucas, 357 F.3d at 605 (emphasis added), but rather, is\\nevidence of his own future acts. See also United States v. Armstrong, 436 F. App’x 501, 503\\n(6th Cir. 2011) (“[E]vidence of a prior act by another is offered as exculpatory evidence by the\\ndefendant, instead of being used by a prosecutor against a defendant.” (emphasis added))\\n(citation omitted); United States v. Clark, 377 F. App’x 451, 458 (6th Cir. 2010) (same); United\\nStates v. Robinson, 272 F. App’x 421, 430 (6th Cir. 2007) (analyzing reverse 404(b) as\\n“evidence of prior acts of a third party offered by a defendant” (emphasis added)).\\n\\n Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of\\nDaneshvar’s billing conduct after he left Mobile Doctors.\\n\\n iii. Admission of the Summary Charts\\n\\n Daneshvar also argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it excluded\\ntwo proposed summary exhibits that Daneshvar sought to admit through his own testimony. We\\ndisagree.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 15\\n\\n\\n On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned the government case agent about two\\nexhibits admitted into evidence during the government’s case-in-chief. These exhibits compiled\\nthe Medicare data for Mobile Doctors and displayed each doctor-employee’s total Medicare\\nbillings and number of home visits. (Trial Exs., R. 135, Page ID # 1984–86, 1989–90.) The\\ncharts showed that Daneshvar billed over $1.4 million to Medicare, more than any other\\nphysician employed by Mobile Doctors, and that he visited the greatest number of patients, as\\ncompared to the other doctors. Defense counsel asked the government case agent to use both of\\nthe exhibits to calculate the average amount that Daneshvar had billed to Medicare per patient\\nand then compare it to the same calculation for the other physicians. This arithmetic yielded the\\naverage amount that each physician billed to Medicare per patient. The agent agreed that “by\\nlooking at the charts,” he “would say yes,” the average amount billed to Medicare per patient\\nvisit was higher for other doctors than for Daneshvar. (Trial Tr. Vol. 5, R. 112, Page ID # 1393.)\\n\\n The next day, defense counsel sought to introduce into evidence two summary exhibits\\nlisting the same calculation for each doctor and his or her average amount billed to Medicare per\\npatient. The government objected on relevance grounds, and defense counsel responded that in\\nlight of government making “a big point about how [Daneshvar’s] amount of money” billed to\\nMedicare was at least $1.4 million, the proposed charts show that Dr. Guzman “had a lot higher\\nratio of how much money was billed per patient visit than Dr. Daneshvar.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 6, R.\\n113, Page ID # 1480–81.) Thus, the charts “show[] that Dr. Daneshvar, while he had a very\\nlarge number of visits, the amount of money billed for his visits put him about fifth or sixth” as\\ncompared to the other physician’s billings per patient visit. (Id.)\\n\\n The district judge remarked that Dr. Guzman was not on trial and held that “[t]he fact that\\nsome other doctor billed even more per visit is irrelevant to what this doctor did.” (Id. at Page\\nID # 1483.) After some back-and-forth, defense counsel again attempted to explain the\\nrelevance of the summary exhibits, stating, “The government brings in summary exhibits and\\nthey argue from them through their witness about what a big crook he is, and then I’m prohibited\\nfrom showing that with the same numbers . . . Dr. Daneshvar is fifth of the group . . . .” (Id. at\\nPage ID # 1484.) The court responded that “according to your theory, if they are all crooks, he\\n[Daneshvar] rated number five as a crook. Somebody was more crooked than he was.” (Id.)\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 16\\n\\n\\nDefense counsel responded that this was not his theory and contended, “It’s just to contradict\\n[the government’s] chart. I mean why is their chart admissible to show he got all of this money,\\nand I can’t explain the difference . . . ?” (Id.) The court nonetheless denied Daneshvar’s request\\non relevance grounds and prohibited defense counsel from asking any more questions about the\\ncalculation. (Id. at 1486.)\\n\\n On appeal, Daneshvar argues that the summary charts were relevant and admissible\\npursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, which allows for the use of a summary, chart, or\\ncalculation. Daneshvar cites to United States v. Bray, 139 F.3d 1104, 1109 (6th Cir. 1998)\\n(internal quotation marks and citations omitted) for the proposition that “the proponent of the\\nsummary must also have made the documents available” to the other side so the opposing party\\ncan “attack the authenticity or accuracy of a chart, summary, or calculation, with an opportunity\\nto prepare for cross-examination, or to offer exhibits of its own as rebuttal evidence, which\\nwould serve to counteract the impression made on the jury by the proponent’s witness.” Finally,\\nDaneshvar argues that the court denied him his constitutional right to present evidence on his\\nown behalf by prohibiting him from asking questions about the arithmetic calculation.\\n\\n Even if we were to agree with Daneshvar that the summary charts and the corresponding\\ncalculations were relevant and admissible, thus finding that the district court erred, such error\\nwas harmless because Daneshvar elicited the same information for the jury’s benefit earlier in\\nthe trial. As detailed earlier, Daneshvar elicited information concerning how much he billed to\\nMedicare on average per patient visit, as compared to the other physicians, during his counsel’s\\ncross-examination of the government’s case agent. Also, at closing argument, Daneshvar’s\\ncounsel argued that the government exhibits did not\\n\\n make an attempt to show how much money was billed by Mobile Doctors per\\n patient visit. That’s what they didn’t do. So you—because I was able to do it\\n with my Mumford High School arithmetic, you can do it yourself. You can take\\n those numbers. You don’t need to make it exact, and you can divide how many\\n visits into how much billing was generated.\\n\\n(Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1774.) Thus, the jury was presented with the very facts that\\nDaneshvar’s counsel wanted to convey with his proposed exhibits.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 17\\n\\n\\n Furthermore, “the evidence against [Daneshvar] on the count to which [the summary\\ncharts] related was overwhelming and [the summary charts] offered only weak support to\\n[Daneshvar’s] case.” Schaeffer, 626 F. App’x at 609. Even if Daneshvar was not the top\\nfraudulent biller to Medicare per patient visit, the evidence demonstrates that he nevertheless\\nbilled fraudulently to Medicare. That he billed less per patient than the other doctors is only\\n“weak support” for his argument. Id.\\n\\n Consequently, we find that any alleged error regarding the district court’s ruling on the\\ndefense’s proposed summary charts constitutes harmless error.\\n\\n B. Jury Instructions\\n\\n For the first time on appeal, Daneshvar argues that it was error for the trial judge to give\\ncertain jury instructions; in particular, he takes issue with three instructions. Because Daneshvar\\n“did not object to the district court’s jury instructions, we review for plain error.” United States\\nv. Carmago-Antonio, 541 F. App’x 678, 679 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v.\\nNewsom, 452 F.3d 593, 605 (6th Cir. 2006)); Fed. R. Crim. P. 30(d). “In the context of\\nchallenges to jury instructions, plain error requires a finding that, taken as a whole, the jury\\ninstructions were so clearly erroneous as to likely produce a grave miscarriage of justice.”\\nUnited States v. Semrau, 693 F.3d 510, 528 (6th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation\\nomitted).\\n\\n i. Deliberate-Ignorance Jury Instruction\\n\\n The district judge read the following instruction to the jury:\\n\\n Now I want to explain something about proving a defendant’s knowledge. No\\n one can avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring the obvious. If\\n you are convinced that the defendant deliberately ignored a high probability that\\n Mobile Doctors was engaged in a fraud, you may find that he knew that Mobile\\n Doctors was engaged in a fraud.\\n\\n But to find this you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the\\n defendant was aware of a high probability that Mobile Doctors was engaged in\\n fraud and that defendant deliberately closed his eyes to what was obvious.\\n Carelessness or negligence or foolishness on his part is not the same as\\n knowledge and is not enough to convict. This, of course, is all for you to decide.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 18\\n\\n\\n(Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1815–16.)\\n\\n Daneshvar concedes that this instruction mirrors the Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction\\n2.09, with no modification, which is used to define the “knowledge” requirement for the charged\\noffenses.5 However, he argues that our circuit has held “that the decision to give this instruction\\nis to be approached with significant prudence and caution. More specifically, we have noted that\\nthe instruction should not be given routinely because of the risk of a conviction based on mere\\nnegligence, carelessness or ignorance.” United States v. Mitchell, 681 F.3d 867, 876 (6th Cir.\\n2012) (citing Mari, 47 F.3d at 785). We have said that the instruction should “be used\\nsparingly.” Geisen, 612 F.3d at 486. Daneshvar argues that this is an instance in which the\\ninstruction should not have been given because the government did not provide evidence that he\\ndeliberately turned a blind eye to Mobile Doctors’s activities.\\n\\n “This is not, of course, our first encounter with this instruction.” Mitchell, 681 F.3d at\\n876. “What [Daneshvar] challenges . . . is the propriety, in light of the evidence presented at\\ntrial, of giving the instruction at all. He contends that the jury could not have within reason\\nfound, based on the evidence, that he was deliberately ignorant of the existence of the [Medicare\\nfraud].” Mari, 47 F.3d at 785. We resolved the issue raised by Daneshvar in Mari, and we are\\nbound by that decision to hold that the district court did not commit plain error in giving the\\ninstruction. See id at 785–86 (explaining rationale for the instruction and circumstances in\\nwhich, even if the instruction was given mistakenly, “giving the Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury\\nInstruction on deliberate ignorance was harmless as a matter of law”).\\n\\n ii. Conspiracy Jury Instruction\\n\\n The district court also read the following jury instruction to the jury:\\n\\n If you are convinced there was a criminal agreement, then you must decide\\n whether the government has proved that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily\\n joined that agreement. To convict the defendant, the government must prove that\\n he knew the conspiracy’s main purpose, that he voluntarily joined it intending to\\n help or achieve its goals.\\n 5\\n We have repeatedly held that this instruction is an accurate statement of the law. See, e.g., United States\\nv. Geisen, 612 F.3d 471, 486 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Beaty, 245 F.3d 617, 622 (6th Cir. 2001); United\\nStates v. Mari, 47 F.3d 782, 785 (6th Cir. 1995).\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 19\\n\\n\\n This does not require proof that the defendant knew everything about the\\n conspiracy or everyone else involved or that he was a member of it from the very\\n beginning. Nor does it require proof that the defendant played a major role in the\\n conspiracy or that his connection to it was substantial. A slight role or connection\\n may be enough.\\n\\n(Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1817–18.)\\n\\n This instruction is identical to the Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 3.03. Daneshvar\\nargues that we “should take this opportunity to disavow the jury instruction” (Appellant Br. at\\n40), and in doing so, he makes the same argument as in United States v. Mahbub, 818 F.3d 213,\\n230 (6th Cir. 2016), where the defendant contended that the jury instruction lowers the burden of\\nproof. In Mahbub, we held:\\n\\n [The defendant’s] contention lacks merit. The instruction states, and the district\\n court read, “[a] slight role or connection may be enough” to link a defendant to a\\n conspiracy, which is an accurate legal proposition. See United States v. Price,\\n 258 F.3d 539, 544 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The connection of the defendant to the\\n conspiracy need only be slight, if there is sufficient evidence to establish that\\n connection beyond a reasonable doubt.”); United States v. Betancourt, 838 F.2d\\n 168, 174 (6th Cir. 1988) (“The existence of a connection to the conspiracy must\\n be shown beyond a reasonable doubt, but the importance of the connection need\\n not be great.”). To the extent that the disputed language lowers the burden of\\n proof to support a conviction, we note that “no single provision of the jury\\n instruction can be read in isolation;” instead, “the charge must be considered as a\\n whole.” United States v. Horton, 847 F.2d 313, 322 (6th Cir. 1988).\\n\\nId. We determined that “the district court made it abundantly clear that the reasonable-doubt\\nstandard applied in determining whether [the defendant] should be found guilty of criminal\\nconspiracy” by using the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the jury instructions. Id.\\n\\n Daneshvar argues that unlike in Mahbub, “the rest of the jury instructions in this case\\ncombined to relieve the government of its high standard of proof and replace it with speculation\\nand probabilities.” (Appellant Br. at 39.) We do not find that Daneshvar’s argument has merit,\\nlet alone establishes that the district court committed plain error. As in Mahbub, the district\\ncourt here repeatedly used the reasonable-doubt standard. Before beginning the conspiracy\\nsection, the court stated: “A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership. For you to find the\\ndefendant guilty of the conspiracy charge, the government must prove each and every one of the\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 20\\n\\n\\nfollowing elements beyond a reasonable doubt . . . .” (Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1816.)\\nAgain, the court stated, “You must be convinced that the government has proved all of these\\nelements beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the conspiracy\\ncharge.” (Id. at Page ID # 1817.)\\n\\n Although Daneshvar points out that other circuits do not use the phrase “slight evidence,”\\nour circuit continues to do so, so long as, considering the jury instructions as a whole, the\\ninstructions do not lower the burden of proof. See Mahbub, 818 F.3d at 230; see also United\\nStates v. Price, 258 F.3d 539, 544 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The connection of the defendant to the\\nconspiracy need only be slight, if there is sufficient evidence to establish that connection beyond\\na reasonable doubt.”). Upon reviewing the jury instructions as a whole, including the district\\ncourt’s repeated use of the reasonable-doubt standard, we find that the instructions did not lower\\nthe burden of proof.6 Thus, we find no error in the use of the conspiracy jury instruction.\\n\\n iii. Presumption of Innocence Preliminary Jury Instruction\\n\\n At the start of the trial, the district court provided the parties with a set of preliminary\\njury instructions the court intended to use, and neither side objected. One of these instructions\\nread:\\n\\n Now, there are some basic rules about a criminal case you must keep in mind.\\n First, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The indictment\\n against a defendant is only an accusation, nothing more. It’s not proof of guilt or\\n anything else. The defendant, therefore, starts out the case with a clean slate.\\n\\n(Trial Tr. Vol I, R. 108, Page ID # 612–13.)7\\n\\n\\n\\n 6\\n Daneshvar argues that the deliberate-indifference jury instruction, combined with the conspiracy jury\\ninstruction that was given, lowers the burden of proof. But other than arguing, as we discussed above, that the\\ngovernment failed to present evidence that he acted with deliberate indifference, Daneshvar presents no other\\nargument or evidence that the deliberate-indifference jury instruction can lower the burden of proof. We find that\\nthis sort of conclusory statement is, “bereft of factual and legal support, [thus, Daneshvar] has not properly\\ndeveloped this argument.” Gafurova v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 321, 328 (6th Cir. 2018). Similarly, Daneshvar, in one\\nsentence of his brief, argues that the use of the words “natural and probable” by the district court in the jury\\ninstructions resulted in lowering the burden of proof. Again, he presents no other argument or authority for support.\\nThus, we hold that Daneshvar has forfeited these arguments.\\n 7\\n The instructions are copied from those in the model preliminary jury instructions for criminal trials\\npublished in the Benchbook for federal district judges. See Federal Judicial Center, Benchbook for U.S. District\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 21\\n\\n\\n Daneshvar argues that this instruction does not mirror that found in the Sixth Circuit\\nPattern Criminal Jury Instruction 1.03, which states that the “presumption of innocence stays\\nwith [the defendant] unless the government presents evidence here in court that overcomes the\\npresumption.” In particular, Daneshvar takes issue with the district court’s use of the word\\n“until,” in comparison to the pattern jury instruction’s use of the word “unless.”\\n\\n Daneshvar has not established plain error from the district court’s preliminary\\ninstructions. The Supreme Court has stated that the use of the word “until” in the following\\ninstruction is “quite correct”:\\n\\n The defendant is presumed to be innocent of all the charges against him until he\\n is proven guilty by the evidence submitted to you. This presumption remains with\\n the defendant until such time, in the progress of the case, that you are satisfied of\\n the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt . . . . Every man is presumed to be innocent\\n until he is proved guilty, and this legal presumption of innocence is to be regarded\\n by the jury in this case as matter of evidence, to the benefit of which the party is\\n entitled.\\n\\nAgnew v. United States, 165 U.S. 36, 51 (1897) (emphasis added).\\n\\n As in Agnew, in which the jury instructions included phrases such as “guilt beyond a\\nreasonable doubt” and “presum[ption] of innocence,” the context of the instructions in the instant\\ncase demonstrates that Daneshvar was presumed innocent as the trial began. The district court\\nstated that Daneshvar “starts out the case with a clean slate,” that he had “no burden to prove\\ninnocence,” and that “the government must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable\\ndoubt.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 1, R. 108, Page ID # 613.) Thus, the instruction, “especially when\\nconsidered in its context,” was not improper. United States v. Hynes, 467 F.3d 951, 956–57 (6th\\nCir. 2006) (“But even if the isolated statement could be interpreted as improper, the district court\\navoided any prejudice to [the defendant] by twice instructing the jury on the presumption of\\ninnocence.”).\\n\\n We also note, as Daneshvar concedes, that the district court told the jury there would be\\n“further instructions” later, and he used the “unless” phrase at the end of the trial, when he\\n\\n\\nCourt Judges § 2.07 (6th ed. 2013). We have recognized that judges should use this Benchbook. See United States\\nv. McDowell, 814 F.2d 245, 249–50 (6th Cir. 1987).\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 22\\n\\n\\ndelivered jury instructions prior to the jury deliberation period. (See Trial Tr. Vol. 1, R. 108,\\nPage ID # 613; Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1808.)\\n\\n In sum, we do not find that the jury instruction is clearly or obviously incorrect so as to\\nconstitute plain error.\\n\\n C. Response to Jurors’ Question\\n\\n Daneshvar also raises issue with the district court’s response to the jurors’ question,\\nwhich was posed to the court during the middle of jury deliberations. Daneshvar argues that,\\nafter the foreperson asked this question, the court failed to clarify the issue concerning the legal\\ndefinition of conspiracy.\\n\\n We find no error in the district court’s response to the jury. To explain our reasoning, we\\nrecount below the exchange between the district judge and the jury, and between the judge and\\nparties’ counsel, during jury deliberations.\\n\\n On the second day of deliberations, the jury requested readback of certain pieces of\\ntestimony. Later in the day, the court received a note from the jury stating: “We have reached\\nour verdict on Counts 2 and 3 SOLID. We are at a hard hung jury on Count 1, no budging.\\nPlease advise.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 9, R. 78, Page ID # 341.) At first, both defense counsel and the\\ngovernment requested an Allen charge,8 but then, both parties agreed with the court’s suggestion\\nto first speak to the foreperson. The court told the foreperson that, “[i]n my experience, you\\nhaven’t deliberated very long.” (Id. at Page ID # 342). The court then asked, “Is it your view\\nthat there’s a question that could be answered possibly or a portion of a testimony that could be\\nread possibly that might I suppose I would say achieve movement?” (Id.)\\n\\n The foreperson responded that the jurors were “getting hung up a little bit on the\\nconspiracy.” (Id. at Page ID # 343.) The foreperson asked, “So is conspiracy—how do I\\ndescribe this—can it be Mobile Doctors, the company as a whole? Does that make sense?” (Id.)\\nThe court responded, “Well, there’s an instruction on what constitutes conspiracy.” (Id.) The\\n\\n 8\\n In Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), the Supreme Court approved the use of a jury instruction\\nintended to prevent a hung jury by encouraging jurors to render a verdict. This instruction has now become known\\nas the Allen charge.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 23\\n\\n\\nforeperson then remarked that “[t]here’s a lot of variables to it that some rather than others are\\nhaving more difficulty with.” (Id.)\\n\\n The court next inquired as to whether “my rereading a portion of the instruction would be\\nhelpful?” (Id.) The foreperson replied that “it might be,” and directed the court to a portion of\\nthe jury instructions that was the issue. (Id. at Page ID # 343–44.) The foreperson stated that\\n“some of the jurors feel that . . . ,” but, before the foreperson or court could proceed further, the\\ngovernment requested a sidebar. (Id. at Page ID # 344.) The court sent the foreperson back to\\nthe jury room.\\n\\n The government attorney explained that she was afraid the foreperson would reveal what\\nthe jurors had been deliberating. The judge responded that the foreperson was “telling me that\\nthere’s a hang-up on what this means.” (Id. at 345.) The judge then said, “Let me suggest\\nsomething to you. [T]he note I just got does not come as a surprise to the Court. [I]f this is a\\nhung jury, the likelihood of you retrying this case is not very great.” (Id.) When the government\\nattorney protested to this characterization, the judge responded, “[w]ell, I’m telling you, you may\\nhave some problems in that regard, I don’t know. But I think you ought to let her [the\\nforeperson] elaborate.” (Id.)\\n\\n The government attorney then expressed concern that when the foreperson started to use\\nthe phrase “some of us,” the foreperson was about to reveal information about what the jurors\\nhad been deliberating about. (Id. at 346.) The judge responded, “I don’t know what she’s going\\nto say. I’ve asked her if the Court can give her any assistance. And she can tell us, and I can say\\nI can’t respond to that. That’s not revealing what—she’s revealing what the hang up is and she’s\\nsuggesting that the instructions are inadequate is what she’s saying.” (Id.)\\n\\n Defense counsel remarked that it appeared the jury was having trouble understanding\\nwhether Daneshvar “[c]an . . . be convicted of conspiring with the entity Mobile Doctors[.]\\n[A]nd the answer to that is no, you can’t conspire with an entity.” (Id.) The judge responded, “I\\ndon’t know what she was saying then. We started over.” (Id.) Defense counsel again reiterated\\nwhat he believed to be the foreperson’s question and added that “if they’re having problems with\\nthe instruction, . . . all the court can do is say, ‘you have the instructions.’” (Id. at Page ID #\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 24\\n\\n\\n346–47.) The court responded, “I understand that I cannot comment. I can only listen to her and\\nthen see what she has to say and then either say, ‘I—I appreciate what you’re saying,’” and then\\neither remind the jury to “take the instructions as a whole” and “can’t single out any one or\\nmore,” or “hear out” the foreperson. (Id.) Defense counsel agreed and stated, “I’m good with\\nthat.” (Id. at 347, 348 (“That’s fine with me . . .”).)\\n\\n At this point, the court summoned the foreperson, and asked, “tell me now, what is it . . .\\nthat concerns the panel?” (Id. at 348.) The foreperson responded, “So, before I do that, can I tell\\nyou about the conversation we just had . . . ?” (Id.) The foreperson then explained that “[s]ome\\npeople don’t think all the variables were made in Count 1 and they . . . [are] not going to come\\noff that opinion.” (Id.) The foreperson pointed out where in the jury instructions some jurors\\nfelt as though “[n]ot all of those [elements] have been made in this juror’s eyes.” (Id. at Page ID\\n# 348–50.) The court reacted by sending the foreperson back into the jury deliberation room and\\nagain conferring with the parties.\\n\\n During the sidebar, defense counsel “recommend[ed] that the Court take the verdict as to\\nCounts 2 and 3 and declare a hung jury as to Count 1.” (Id. at Page ID # 350.) The government\\nopposed this recommendation, requesting instead an Allen charge because the jury had “only\\nbeen deliberating for three hours yesterday and four or five hours today.” (Id.) After the court\\nagreed to give the Allen charge, defense counsel responded, “I’m a little worried of a rushed\\nverdict, although it sure doesn’t sound like it will be one. But if we would give them the Allen\\ncharge, I’m fine, and then let them go and come back Monday.” (Id. at Page ID # 350–51.)\\nThough the court at first resisted the defense’s adjournment request, ultimately the court agreed,\\npreviewed the Allen charge for the parties, and asked if it was okay. Both counsel agreed it was\\nacceptable.\\n\\n The court then read the jurors the Allen charge and sent them home for the weekend. The\\nfollowing Monday, May 8, 2017, the jury returned their verdict.\\n\\n On appeal, Daneshvar argues that the verdict was improper because the district court\\nshould have given a supplemental instruction defining conspiracy. The government responds\\nthat Danehvar’s challenge to the district court’s response should begin and end with waiver\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 25\\n\\n\\nbecause defense counsel intentionally relinquished any objection to the court’s ultimate decision\\nto read the Allen charge and make no other supplemental instruction. We agree.\\n\\n In United States v. Budd, 496 F.3d 517, 529 (6th Cir. 2007), we held that even when\\ncounsel had raised objections to the jury instructions, his subsequent statement that he was\\n“comfortable” with the instructions meant that he “cannot now complain about the court’s\\nexplanation of the Fourteenth Amendment standard.” Here, not only did defense counsel state\\nthat he was “fine” with the Allen charge, but also, after the foreperson asked whether “it”\\n(presumably, the conspiracy) could be “Mobile Doctors, the company as a whole,” Daneshvar’s\\ncounsel responded with: “[A]ll the court can do is say, ‘you have the instructions.’” (Id. at Page\\nID # 346–47, 350–51.) Thus, at no point did defense counsel ask for a supplemental jury\\ninstruction regarding conspiracy and in fact, counsel asked the judge to reread the conspiracy\\njury instructions as the court had initially delivered them.\\n\\n True, in United States v. Nunez, 889 F.2d 1564, 1568 (6th Cir. 1989), we held that\\n“[w]hen a jury indicates confusion about an important legal issue, it is not sufficient for the court\\nto rely on more general statements in its prior charge.” However, we further stated that “[t]he\\ngovernment is mistaken in stating that [the defendant] never raised the issue of whether an\\nagreement only between him and [the DEA agent] would be sufficient. [The defendant’s]\\nattorney made this very point in his closing argument. Furthermore, the jury raised the issue, and\\nthat imposed a duty upon the trial judge to respond.” Id. at 1569.\\n\\n Unlike the defense attorney in Nunez, defense counsel here did not raise the particular\\nissue that he now claims confused the jury. Second, and more importantly, the foreperson in\\nNunez clearly asked a question regarding the applicable law: “Can [the defendant] make an\\nagreement with [the DEA agent] to satisfy the agreement element in a conspiracy?” Id. at 1567.\\nThe Nunez foreperson also asked, “Can [the DEA agent] be considered a co-conspirator?” Id. In\\nthe case at hand, by contrast, the first time the foreperson appeared before the district court, she\\nasked, “So is conspiracy . . . can it be Mobile Doctors, the company as a whole?” (Trial Tr. Vol.\\n9, R. 78, Page ID # 343.) The second time the foreperson appeared before the court, she did not\\nask a question. She clarified that the hang-up was that “[s]ome people don’t think all of the\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 26\\n\\n\\nvariables were made in Count 1 and they . . . [are] not going to come off that opinion.” (Id. at\\n348.)\\n\\n It is not clear to us that the jury asked a question in the instant case so as to be considered\\nthe sort of definite inquiry giving rise to a supplemental instruction as was the case in Nunez.\\nWe found in Nunez that “[t]he jury pointedly asked if [the DEA agent] could be a co-conspirator\\nand if an agreement between [the defendant] and [the DEA agent] would ‘satisfy the agreement\\nelement in the conspiracy.’” 889 F.2d at 1569 (emphasis added). Here, the foreperson’s\\nquestion did not reference Daneshvar at all, let alone ask whether Daneshvar could conspire with\\nMobile Doctors under the applicable law regarding conspiracy. The trial judge also did not\\nindicate that he understood defense counsel’s interpretation of the juror question—that the jury\\nwanted to know if Daneshvar could conspire with Mobile Doctors—to be what the foreperson\\nasked. (Trial Tr. Vol. 9, R. 78, Page ID # 346 (“I don’t know what she was saying then.”).)\\n\\n In Nunez, we clarified that “the propriety of a supplemental instruction must be measured\\n‘by whether it fairly responds to the jury’s inquiry without creating . . . prejudice.’” Id. at 1568\\n(quoting United States v. Giacalone, 588 F.2d 1158, 1166 (6th Cir. 1978)). Here, the district\\njudge twice asked the foreperson to explain the question premised on the jury confusion, and\\nthus, the judge attempted to understand the question. In fact, the second time the foreperson was\\nbrought out to the court, the foreperson explained what the issue was: some jurors believed the\\ngovernment had not satisfied all of the elements required under Count 1. We cannot see how a\\nsupplemental instruction regarding the legal definition of conspiracy would have aided the jury\\nat this point, as it appears that the issue presented to the court concerned what to do when jurors\\ndo not budge from their differing opinions.\\n\\n Thus, the trial judge’s decision to read the Allen charge was more appropriately tailored\\nto the jury’s issue, because through the Allen charge, the judge urged the jury to reevaluate the\\nevidence presented for Count 1. The judge stated, “You have advised me that you believe you\\nare unable to reach a verdict and have asked what . . . can be done. This is an instruction . . . .\\n[T]his is how I’m going to answer your question.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 9, R. 78, Page ID # 353.) The\\njudge then proceeded to read the Allen charge. In this way, the judge appropriately provided a\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 27\\n\\n\\nsupplemental instruction “to clear up uncertainties which the jury brings to the court’s attention.”\\nGiacalone, 588 F.2d at 1166.\\n\\n We therefore hold that Daneshvar waived any objection to the district court’s response to\\nthe jury’s inquiry, but even if he had preserved the issue, the district court’s actions upon\\nreceiving the jury question were not in error.\\n\\n D. Sentencing Issues\\n\\n i. Acceptance of Guilt\\n\\n Daneshvar also argues that the district court considered an impermissible factor\\nimplicating Daneshvar’s constitutional right when the court sentenced him. Specifically,\\nDaneshvar argues that he was punished for deciding to go to trial, in violation of his Sixth\\nAmendment right to have a jury trial. We disagree.\\n\\n It is true that at sentencing, the district judge stated that “[t]here was a trial,” and “[i]t\\nreduces rather significantly the lower level of the variance because by going to trial the Court is\\nsatisfied that he does not acknowledge the fact that he was guilty, does not accept responsibility\\nfor his wrongdoing.” (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 107, Page ID # 583.) However, after there was\\nsome discussion during which the judge confirmed that he had reviewed Daneshvar’s\\nsupplemental sentencing memorandum, the judge explained:\\n\\n [N]owhere has there been an explanation for why the doctor went to trial.\\n Nowhere has there been an explanation for why he put the government to the\\n expense and difficulty of establishing his guilt by a jury. Now, that’s his\\n constitutional right, and I’m not denigrating it, but I have not seen anything where\\n the doctor—and it’s too late now—says I made a mistake, I was wrong, I should\\n be punished. Nowhere have I seen that.\\n\\n(Id. at Page ID # 588). Daneshvar’s counsel did not object to this statement by the court.\\n\\n The government argues that Daneshvar forfeited his sentencing objection because his\\ncounsel did not raise it below. But, the failure of Daneshvar’s counsel to object in the district\\ncourt does not forfeit his right to appeal the issue: as the government concedes, the sentencing\\ndecision is reviewable for plain error. See United States v. Cabrera, 811 F.3d 801, 808 (6th Cir.\\n2016); United States v. Davis, 751 F.3d 769, 773 (6th Cir. 2014); United States v. Vonner, 516\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 28\\n\\n\\nF.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). As we explain below, we find that the court did not\\nplainly err when considering Daneshvar’s lack of remorse and responsibility.\\n\\n Regardless of whether Daneshvar’s sentencing challenge “is categorized as being\\nprocedural, substantive, or a combination of the two, it is clear that a sentence based on an\\nimproper factor fails to achieve the purposes of § 3553(a) and may be unreasonable.” Cabrera,\\n811 F.3d at 809 (cleaned up). However, unlike the district court’s impermissible reliance upon\\nthe defendant’s decision not to testify at trial in Cabrera, Daneshvar’s refusal to accept\\nresponsibility was a permissible basis for the district court’s decision not to impose a lesser\\nsentence. See In re Cook, 551 F.3d 542, 551 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that it is “well established\\nthat a defendant’s remorse—or lack thereof—is an appropriate consideration in meting out\\npunishment.”). The transcript of Daneshvar’s sentencing in this case is clear: while the district\\njudge noted Daneshvar’s decision to go trial, the judge also stated, “that’s [Daneshvar’s]\\nconstitutional right, and I’m not denigrating it.” (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 107, Page ID # 588.)\\nThe judge explained that the real issue was that he “ha[d] not seen anything where the doctor . . .\\nsays I made a mistake, I was wrong, I should be punished. Nowhere have I seen that.” (Id.)\\n\\n The district court’s statements here were markedly different than those in Cabrera, where\\nthe sentencing judge recognized that “everybody has the constitutional right to go to trial,” but\\nalso found that the defendant “never put [himself] on the record . . . at the trial.” 811 F.3d at\\n807. The Cabrera sentencing judge further stated, “I have to tell you, from my standpoint . . . I\\nview that as an incredibly cynical attempt to game the whole system here[,]” and that the\\ndefendant “conjured up” a “fantastical story,” “evinc[ing] a total disrespect for the law.” Id.\\nHere, by contrast, the district court did not rely upon Daneshvar’s decision to go to trial as\\nevidencing a malicious intent towards the criminal justice system or resulting in disrespect for\\nthe law. Instead, the district judge explained that his primary concern was Daneshvar’s\\nacceptance of guilt.\\n\\n Daneshvar’s argument is similar to that raised by the defendant in Mitchell. In that case,\\n“[a] significant aspect of [the defendant’s] argument is that he was not involved in the . . .\\nscheme” and thus, the defendant argued “that he cannot take responsibility for something that he\\ndid not do.” 681 F.3d at 884. Similarly, Daneshvar argued that he was not fully aware of the\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 29\\n\\n\\nscheme, nor was he an essential part of it. Daneshvar’s counsel spent much of the trial\\ndemonstrating that Daneshvar was less culpable and less involved in the conspiracy than other\\nmembers.\\n\\n As we held in Mitchell, it is relevant that the jury found Daneshvar had participated in the\\nconspiracy, which is a permissible fact for a district court’s 3553(a) analysis. “[T]he district\\ncourt found that [Daneshvar’s] continued efforts to deny his involvement demonstrated a failure\\nto take responsibility for his crime and a lack of remorse for the harm he had caused. The judge\\ncould have reasonably concluded that [Daneshvar]’s dishonesty regarding important pieces of\\nevidence indicated that he had not fully accepted responsibility for his participation in the\\nconspiracy.” Id. (cleaned up) (citing United States v. Sutton, 387 F. App’x 595, 607 (6th Cir.\\n2010)).\\n\\n “Accordingly, ‘it was not [Daneshvar]’s exercise of his right to [a jury trial], but rather,\\nthat he did not accept responsibility for his crime, that the district court took into account in\\nconsidering the § 3553(a) factors. This was not error.’” Id. (citing United States v. Delano, 411\\nF. App’x 795, 799 (6th Cir. 2011)). In fact, the district court clarified that it recognized\\nDaneshvar’s right to go to trial, and this was not a basis upon which to penalize or “denegrat[e]”\\nhim. (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 107, Page ID # 588.) Rather, Daneshvar’s “failure to take\\nresponsibility and [his] lack of remorse were two facts that the court considered in weighing the\\nvarious § 3553(a) factors that it found to be most relevant to the case at hand. This was not\\nunreasonable,” nor do we find it to be plainly erroneous. Mitchell, 681 F.3d at 885.\\n\\n ii. Minor Role Reduction\\n\\n Daneshvar argues that the court also erred when it denied his request for a two-level\\nreduction under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3B1.2 based on his\\nminor role in the conspiracy.\\n\\n The defendant bears the burden of proving a mitigating role by a preponderance of the\\nevidence. See United States v. Roberts, 223 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2000). “Generally, this\\nCourt reviews a district court’s legal conclusions regarding the Sentencing Guidelines de novo\\nand its factual findings for clear error, though certain exceptions apply.” United States v.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 30\\n\\n\\nWilliams, 420 F. App’x 517, 518 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\\nWe have explained that “[t]he ‘minor participant’ reduction is available only to a party who is\\n‘less culpable than most other participants’ and ‘substantially less culpable than the average\\nparticipant.’” United States v. Lloyd, 10 F.3d 1197, 1220 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting U.S.S.G\\n§ 3B1.2, cmt. n.3). “Whether a defendant is entitled to a downward offense-level adjustment\\nunder U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 depends heavily on factual determinations by the district court, which\\nthis court reviews for clear error.” United States v. Auston, 355 F. App’x 919, 925 (6th Cir.\\n2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\\n\\n The issue arises from the district’s failure to make any factual determinations on the\\nrecord. During Daneshvar’s sentencing, defense counsel asked the court to rule on his objection\\nto the Presentence Report in which he asked for a two-point reduction for Daneshvar’s purported\\nminor role in the conspiracy. (Sentencing Hr’g Trans., R. 107, Page ID # 579–80, 582.) The\\ndistrict judge stated that Daneshvar “will not be given an adjustment for [a] minor role. He was\\na major player.” (Id. at Page ID # 582.) The court offered no other analysis, and defense\\ncounsel did not object.\\n\\n It is true that typically, when a defendant challenges a district court’s denial of his request\\nfor a role reduction to his sentence, we have found that the district court did not abuse its\\ndiscretion or commit clear error if the district court provided an explanation for why it denied the\\ndefendant’s request. But here, we are faced with the unique situation in which a district court\\nhas made no factual findings or elaborated upon its rationale, although the sentencing judge was\\nthe same judge who presided over the trial and thus, presumably had some insight into\\nDaneshvar’s role. We adopt here the rationale of the Ninth Circuit, holding that “a district court\\nneed not tick off sentencing factors to show that it considered them,” but a court cannot, for\\ninstance, “adopt[] the government’s argument with little elaboration.” United States v. Diaz,\\n884 F.3d 911, 914–15, 918 (9th Cir. 2018). In the instant case, we find that the district court\\nerred in denying the defendant’s role reduction request without elaboration on the record as to\\nwhy the court found Daneshvar to be a “major player.”\\n\\n Is this error harmless? “Under the harmless error test, a remand for an error\\nat sentencing is required unless we are certain that any such error was harmless—i.e. any such\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 31\\n\\n\\nerror ‘did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed.’” United States v.\\nHazelwood, 398 F.3d 792, 801 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193,\\n203 (1992)).\\n\\n In determining whether Daneshvar was “less culpable than most other participants”\\nand/or “substantially less culpable than the average participant,” we turn to the U.S.S.G. advisory\\ncommittee notes to § 3B1.2, which provide a non-exhaustive list of factors for a court’s\\nconsideration:\\n\\n (i) The degree to which the defendant understood the scope and structure of\\n the criminal activity;\\n (ii) The degree to which the defendant participated in planning or organizing\\n the criminal activity;\\n (iii) The degree to which the defendant exercised decision-making authority or\\n influenced the exercise of decision-making authority;\\n (iv) The nature and extent of the defendant’s participation in the commission\\n of the criminal activity, including the acts the defendant performed and the\\n responsibility and discretion the defendant had in performing those acts;\\n (v) The degree to which the defendant stood to benefit from the criminal\\n activity.\\n\\nU.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C).\\n\\n There was evidence that Daneshvar significantly benefitted from the criminal activity:\\nalthough he was with Mobile Doctors for approximately one year, he was paid the most of all of\\nthe physicians employed by the company, receiving over $200,000 in salary payments plus a\\n$15,000 bonus. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C)(v). Daneshvar also had the authority to certify that patients\\nwere homebound, which he did even with the knowledge that many of his patients were not\\nhomebound; he signed off on routing slips including at least three diagnoses for each patient,\\neven when the patient did not suffer from the diagnoses; and at times, Daneshvar personally\\nauthorized Mobile Doctors to bill Medicare for the two highest billing codes for patients from\\nwhom the codes did not apply. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C)(iii) (iv). Although Daneshvar was not\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 32\\n\\n\\ninvolved in the planning or organization of Mobile Doctors, nor was he aware of every part of\\nthe scheme, he understood how Mobile Doctors generated money from fraudulently billing\\nMedicare because he received a pay chart detailing the amount Mobile Doctors paid to each\\nphysician per billed Medicare code. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C)(i) and (ii).\\n\\n For these reasons, we find that although the district court erred in its analysis, the error\\nwas harmless because the evidence plainly demonstrated that Daneshvar was not a minor\\nparticipant in the conspiracy.\\n\\n iii. Calculation of Guidelines Range\\n\\n Daneshvar argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district\\ncourt did not calculate the appropriate sentencing Guidelines range before pronouncing the\\nsentence.\\n\\n The district court began the sentencing by stating Daneshvar’s offense level, criminal\\nhistory score, and the United States Probation Office’s recommendation of a sentencing range of\\n63 to 78 months. (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 107, Page ID # 579.) Next, the court stated that,\\nbased upon the parties’ sentencing memoranda, it “intends to vary the sentence from the\\nrecommendation and the guidelines.” (Id.) Thus, the court asked whether, “[i]n light of the fact\\nthat the Court intends to grant a variance that will be rather substantial,” was it “necessary to\\nresolve” outstanding objections. (Id.) Defense counsel responded that although he “would say\\nsay no,” it was not necessary to resolve the objections, counsel was under the impression that our\\ncircuit required resolution of outstanding objections and an articulation of the Guidelines range\\nduring sentencing. (Id. at Page ID # 579–80.) The court accepted counsel’s request and then\\nwent through each of the outstanding objections.\\n\\n First, the court explained that as to the objection concerning the “loss amount,” it found\\n“the restitution amount as a compromise between what the defendant says and what the\\ngovernment says” because “there hasn’t been an independent audit presented to the Court\\nestablishing the loss by the Government.” (Id. at Page ID # 581.) The second objection dealt\\nwith the “abuse of trust” enhancement in the Sentencing Guidelines. Defense counsel argued\\nagainst application of the enhancement, and the court agreed. The third and final objection\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 33\\n\\n\\nconcerned Daneshvar’s role in the offense, and, as detailed earlier, the court rejected\\nDaneshvar’s request for a role reduction.\\n\\n The court next moved into consideration of Daneshvar’s sentence. As we discussed\\nearlier, the court explained it did not find that Daneshvar had shown remorse or accepted\\nresponsibility for his actions. The court also inquired about the sentences of Daneshvar’s co-\\nconspirators, as well as particular similarities and differences between the cases, to avoid\\nsentencing disparity.\\n\\n The court then asked if the parties wished to address the court, and a lengthy discussion\\nensued. After hearing arguments from both parties, the court pronounced the sentence.\\n\\n “A district court commits procedural error by ‘failing to calculate (or improperly\\ncalculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the\\n§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately\\nexplain the chosen sentence.’” United States v. Fowler, 819 F.3d 298, 304 (6th Cir. 2016)\\n(citation omitted). In United States v. Blackie, 548 F.3d 395, 401, 403 (6th Cir. 2008), the court\\ndetermined that it could not “meaningfully review [the defendant’s] sentence” because the\\ndistrict court had not acknowledged the Guidelines range, failed to give specific reasons for its\\nvariance, and failed to clarify whether it had rejected various Guidelines enhancements. We\\nhave held that this “combination warrant[ed] reversal.” United States v. Turner, 536 F. App’x\\n614, 620 (6th Cir. 2013).\\n\\n Here, the district court began by acknowledging the recommended Guidelines sentencing\\nrange, including Daneshvar’s criminal history score and total offense level that led to this range.\\nAt no point did the court indicate that it considered the Guidelines range as mandatory; in fact,\\nthe court announced that it would be varying from the Guidelines range. Next, the court\\nconsidered all of the outstanding objections and resolved them. Finally, the court provided\\nspecific reasons both for and against variance, including: (1) Daneshvar’s lack of acceptance of\\nresponsibility, (2) sentencing disparities in comparison to Daneshvar’s co-conspirators and,\\n(3) sentencing disparities in comparison to other physicians who were charged under the same\\nstatute. Only then did the court pronounce the sentence. Pursuant to our circuit’s case law, the\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 34\\n\\n\\nsentence was procedurally reasonable, and the district court did not err.9 See also United States\\nv. Aleo, 681 F.3d 290, 299 (6th Cir. 2012) (finding no error when the sentencing judge did not\\nre-calculate the Guidelines range after the defendant raised an objection to his sentencing\\nenhancement because the district court properly resolved the objection to the enhancement).\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n Medicare fraud has long plagued the American healthcare system. Fraud and systematic\\nupcoding are estimated at roughly 10 percent of Medicare’s costs every year. The taxes spent on\\nprosecution of Medicare fraud add even more to the program’s costs. But, the expense and\\ndifficulty of trying a Medicare fraud case, or indeed, any criminal case in which the defendant\\nchooses to go to trial, are part of the worthwhile price we pay as a people who have the\\nconstitutional right of trial by jury. Daneshvar was able to exercise this right and his sentence\\ndoes not reflect that he was unfairly penalized in any way.\\n\\n For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM both the district court’s rulings at trial and\\nDaneshvar’s sentence.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 9\\n We also note that after the court announced the sentence, the government requested to put into the record\\nthe Guidelines calculation. The government stated that Daneshvar’s offense level was 20 (from a base offense level\\nof 6, plus a 14-point enhancement for the loss amount, and the court did not accept any other enhancements). The\\ncourt accepted this calculation, as did defense counsel, who also stated that he believed this resulted in a Guidelines\\nrange of 37 to 46 months. Thus, the appropriate Guidelines calculation was placed in the record for our review.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4402102/\", \"author_raw\": \"JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"SILER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"COOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BUSH"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"SILER\": \", Circuit\", \"COOK\": \", Circuit\", \"BUSH\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624849/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Gerald Daneshvar\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-30\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0109p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n > No. 18-1101\n v. │\n │\n │\n GERALD DANESHVAR, │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\n No. 2:15-cr-20362-1—Avern Cohn, District Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: April 29, 2019*\n\n Before: SILER, COOK, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: Elizabeth L. Jacobs, Steven Fishman, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Andrew\nGoetz, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. In the old days, every doctor made house calls to treat\npatients. In more recent days, Dr. Gerald Daneshvar made house calls as part of a conspiracy to\ncommit Medicare fraud.\n\n\n\n *This decision was originally filed as an unpublished opinion on April 29, 2019. The court has now\ndesignated the opinion for publication.\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 2\n\n\n Daneshvar’s conspiracy lasted from 2012 to approximately 2013, during his time at a\ncompany called Mobile Doctors. Ultimately, Daneshvar was charged with one count of a\nconspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and two counts of healthcare fraud. A jury convicted\nDaneshvar on the conspiracy count but found him not guilty of the other two counts. Daneshvar\nwas sentenced to 24 months in prison. This appeal followed.\n\n The record demonstrates that Daneshvar’s trial was fair and that none of the district\ncourt’s rulings during that proceeding should be reversed. Furthermore, we find no reversible\nerror with his sentencing. We therefore AFFIRM.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n A. Medicare\n\n Medicare is a taxpayer-funded healthcare benefit program for persons who are 65 and\nolder and for those under 65 with disabilities. Typically, a Medicare beneficiary visits a doctor’s\noffice and Medicare reimburses the doctor for the provided service. Medicare also pays for\ndoctors’ home visits in certain circumstances; however, house calls cost Medicare more money\nthan treatment in a doctor’s office. Thus, to qualify for a home visit, a patient must be\nhomebound, which occurs if the patient has a condition because of an illness or injury that\nrestricts the patient’s ability to leave his or her place of residence without the aid of a supportive\ndevice (e.g., cane, wheelchair, etc.). Also, the homebound patient actually must need the\nphysician’s services.\n\n Given the voluminous number of beneficiaries and doctors, Medicare does not review\neach home healthcare claim. Instead, Medicare relies upon doctors to accurately and honestly\nbill the services they provide.\n\n B. Mobile Doctors\n\n In 2003, Dike Ajiri, a non-medical professional, opened Mobile Doctors, headquartered\nin Chicago. It eventually expanded into seven states, including Michigan, and offered physician\nservices to homebound Medicare beneficiaries. It hired doctors who agreed to assign their\nMedicare billing rights to the company. After a home visit, each doctor would fill out a routing\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 3\n\n\nslip describing the patient’s diagnoses using Medicare codes and certifying that a qualified home\nvisit had occurred. The original of the routing slip stayed with the patient file, while the carbon\ncopy went to Mobile Doctors, which sought payment from Medicare. Upon receipt of payment,\nMobile Doctors would then pay the physician-employee a percentage of what the company\nreceived from billing Medicare.\n\n The problem with this business model was that a large portion of Mobile Doctors’s\npatients, in fact, did not qualify as being homebound. For instance, one doctor saw a supposedly\nhomebound patient return home carrying groceries. Another patient rescheduled her\nappointment because she was bowling. Nevertheless, Mobile Doctors’s physicians were\nundeterred in characterizing such patients as homebound. In some instances, the doctors went\neven further: they signed certifications for additional unneeded treatment from companies that\nprovided at-home nursing or physical therapy services—companies that had referred the patients\nto Mobile Doctors.\n\n For many patients, whether legitimately homebound or not, Mobile Doctors exaggerated\nthe services they needed. For example, Mobile Doctors scheduled each patient for a home visit\nevery 30 days, regardless of whether it was necessary. At most, only half of these patients\nneeded the prescribed medical care.\n\n Mobile Doctors also engaged in upcoding, a fraudulent practice in which a healthcare\nprovider submits a Medicare code for a more serious and more expensive diagnosis or procedure\nthan the provider actually diagnosed or performed. Typically, at each home visit, a doctor met\nwith a patient for 15 minutes at a minimum. Then, the doctor filled out the routing slip and,\nregardless of how healthy the patient was, the doctor usually selected only the two most\nexpensive Medicare reimbursement codes for home healthcare. These top two codes are\nsupposed to be rare because Medicare limits them to complex visits lasting around an hour and\nrequiring extensive examination and treatment. But, Mobile Doctors utilized these codes for\nalmost every doctor’s visit, even visits as short as 10 minutes, which involved no tests or other\nassessments.\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 4\n\n\n In order to justify the higher-reimbursement codes, Mobile Doctors instructed their\nphysicians to list at least three diagnoses in the patient file; if the doctors did not list enough,\nthen a staff member added more to meet the three-diagnoses minimum. Typical diagnoses used\nto pad the claims were conditions that are common to persons over 50 years old: degenerative\njoint disease, degenerative disk disease, high blood pressure, chronic pain, arthritis, and vitamin\nD deficiency.\n\n Mobile Doctors only paid their physicians if they checked at least one of the top two\nbilling codes on their routing slips. If the doctor billed for the higher of the top two codes, the\ndoctor was paid more. And each doctor knew which codes paid the most. Every two weeks,\nphysicians received a pay chart detailing the pay for all doctors at the company. The pay chart\ndetailed the number of patients the physician visited per code, and how much Mobile Doctors\npaid for that particular code.\n\n Mobile Doctors also encouraged their physicians to order diagnostic tests at specific\nintervals and required baseline laboratory tests either once or twice per year, whether the patients\nneeded the tests or not. This testing was authorized by a “standing order” that Mobile Doctors\nrequired its physicians to sign even though Medicare prohibits testing ordered pursuant to\nstanding orders. But Mobile Doctors thought otherwise: A doctor received bonuses from Mobile\nDoctors based, in part, on how many tests were authorized under that doctor’s name pursuant to\nthe standing order.\n\n C. Daneshvar’s Involvement with Mobile Doctors\n\n In September 2012, Dr. Gerald Daneshvar1 joined Mobile Doctors as a physician in its\nMichigan office. He enrolled with Medicare, signed over his Medicare billing privileges to\nMobile Doctors, and certified that he would abide by the rules set forth by Medicare and would\nnot submit false claims.\n\n Daneshvar then began conducting home visits. In return, for submitting his routing slips,\nhe received payment from Mobile Doctors along with a pay chart detailing the pay for each\n\n\n 1\n Daneshvar is referred to as “Dr. Gerry” in some of the trial exhibits and testimony.\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 5\n\n\nphysician per patient visit and Medicare code. But, Daneshvar later confessed that\napproximately 30 percent of his patients that he certified as homebound were, in fact, not so.\nAnd, according to one medical assistant, Robin Johnson, the fraud was even worse: Johnson\ntestified that as many as half of Daneshvar’s patients were not homebound.\n\n In fact, every time medical assistant Danielle Mangan went with Daneshvar for home\nvisits, there would be at least one patient who was not even at home when they arrived for the\nvisit. Medical assistant Shannon Guyton had similar experiences with Daneshvar. She testified\nthat many of the patients could drive or leave their homes without assistance. One of\nDaneshvar’s patients also testified that she would regularly leave her house for daily activities\nsuch as going to the store. Another patient cancelled her appointment because “[s]he was getting\nready to leave,” and yet another was not home because he was “out with his friend.” (Trial Tr.\nVol. 3, R. 110, Page ID # 951, 988–89.) Once, when medical assistant India Brimberry was\nconducting home visits with Daneshvar, she saw a patient pull up in his car with bags, returning\nfrom a store. Another patient, Kevin Barrett, biked regularly and played in his church band.\nBarrett was honest: he told Daneshvar that he was not homebound. But such honesty did not\ncarry over to Daneshvar’s Medicare certifications.\n\n In the patient charts, Daneshvar would pre-sign forms documenting the face-to-face\nencounter, because Medicare rules state that a physician needs to make an in-person visit. Then,\nthe clinical coordinator would fill out the diagnoses based on the routing slip or the exam notes\nwithin the chart. The forms stated, “I certify that based on my findings the following services\nare medically necessary home health services. Check all that apply.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 2, R. 109,\nPage ID # 798.) The form continued, “Further, I certify that my clinical findings support that the\npatient is homebound (i.e., absences from home require considerable and taxing effort and are\nfor medical reasons or religion services or infrequently or of short duration . . . for other reasons\n. . .).” (Id. at Page ID # 799.)\n\n Daneshvar not only fraudulently presented patients’ homebound status, but he also\nreferred his patients to home healthcare agencies for other unneeded services. Daneshvar once\nadmitted to medical assistant Guyton that one of his patients “didn’t need the [medical] service,\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 6\n\n\nthey weren’t homebound.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 2, R. 109, Page ID # 930.) But, that isolated instance\nof candor was not indicative of Daneshvar’s practice generally.\n\n As it turned out, Daneshvar would conduct the most home visits of any doctor employed\nby Mobile Doctors. During his employment, he saw almost 4,000 patients, which worked out to\nbe around 20 patients per day. In order to handle such a large volume, according to several\nmedical assistants, Daneshvar evaluated the patient in approximately 10 to 15 minutes, shorter in\nduration than evaluations by other physicians employed by Mobile Doctors. And Daneshvar\nscheduled every patient for his speedy visit every 30 days, regardless of whether the patient\nneeded the house call. At each visit, Daneshvar would typically write three to four diagnoses for\nthe patient on a routing slip; sometimes the clinical coordinator added diagnoses based on the\npatient chart. Daneshvar even acted as seemingly clairvoyant: he sometimes filled out the\ndiagnoses before he even met with the patient.\n\n After completion of Daneshvar’s home visits, the routing slip was transmitted to the\nChicago office, where the Mobile Doctors staff engaged in upcoding. (See Trial Tr. Vol. 3, R.\n109, Page ID # 804 (“Upcode per Dr. Gerry.”).) Daneshvar admitted that “most of his patients\nwere billed at a 4 or 5 level even though they qualified for 3 or lower.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 5, R. 112,\nPage ID # 1363.) Sometimes, Daneshvar himself checked a box with the appropriate Medicare\ncode on the routing slip. Other times, a medical assistant checked the box on Daneshvar’s behalf\nand placed a copy of the routing slip in the patient file. Daneshvar never disapproved of the\ncodes on routing slips, and his signature appeared on all of the routing slips for his home visits.\nMobile Doctors would pay Daneshvar whenever he billed at least one of the top two codes.\nMobile Doctors also billed Medicare for two or three times the number of hours Daneshvar\nactually spent with the patient, based upon the routing slip.\n\n At one point, Daneshvar asked Dr. Stephen Mason, another Mobile Doctors employee,\nhow he could make more money. Dr. Mason told him that “[w]e can’t bill any higher than we\nare already billing. We are billing too high already.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 4, R. 111, Page ID # 1147.)\nBut there was another way to boost the bottom line—giving injections of medications into the\npatients’ musculoskeletal systems. Dr. Mason was getting paid extra for every injection. His\nexperience led Daneshvar to do the same.\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 7\n\n\n Along with injections, early-and-often testing was a money-maker. Daneshvar signed the\nMobile Doctors standing order for testing, which stated:\n\n Mobile Doctors Physician Standing Orders Preventative Care. Mobile Doctors\n actively promotes preventative care and early intervention. A thorough history\n and physical examination should be obtained on all of our patients along with\n preventative care. Based on the billable diagnosis for (enter state) Medicare,\n I give my clinical coordinator permission to order testing on my behalf when\n warranted.\n\n(Trial Tr. Vol. 1, R. 108, Page ID # 712–13; Trial Exs., R. 135, Page ID # 1970.) Pursuant to the\nstanding order, Mobile Doctors’s staff would sign Daneshvar’s name on testing order forms.\nThe test results would come back, they would go to Daneshvar, and he would initial the results.\nDaneshvar never objected when Mobile Doctors’s staff ordered tests on his behalf pursuant to his\nstanding order.\n\n Ultimately, Daneshvar billed Medicare for almost $1.5 million in claims, was paid a\nsalary of almost $250,000 from Mobile Doctors, and received the highest bonuses of all the\ndoctors employed by the company. Mobile Doctors rewarded Daneshvar handsomely because\nhe “does literally anything we ask,” and so “we need to keep him happy.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 4, R.\n111, Page ID # 1225; Trial Tr. Vol. 5, R. 112, Page ID # 1372–76; Trial Exs., R. 135, Page ID #\n1976–79.) In June of 2013, Mobile Doctors re-signed Daneshvar’s contract, agreeing to reward\nhim with a $15,000 bonus. Mobile Doctors also agreed to pay Daneshvar an additional $4 per\npatient, but only when he billed the two highest codes, which were “the actual levels that\naffect[ed his] pay.” (Trial Exs., R. 135, Page ID # 1972.)\n\n D. Medicare Fraud Investigation\n\n Eventually, federal agents caught up with Mobile Doctors. In August 2013, agents\nexecuted search warrants at all three Mobile Doctors offices, including the Michigan office\nwhere Daneshvar worked. The same day, two agents interviewed Daneshvar at a coffee shop.\nDaneshvar admitted that: (1) even though he certified his patients as homebound, approximately\n30 percent of them were not; (2) he referred patients to home healthcare agencies, including\nthose patients who were not homebound; (3) most of his patient visits lasted 15 to 20 minutes,\nallowing him to see 20 patients per day; (4) most patients were billed at “4” and “5,” the two\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 8\n\n\nhighest Medicare codes, and thus, most of his patients were misbilled because they should have\nbeen billed at a “3” or lower; and (5) his salary from Mobile Doctors was tied to billing codes\n“4” and “5.”\n\n E. The Trial\n\n A federal grand jury indicted Daneshvar on one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare\nfraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and two counts of healthcare fraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1347. The\ncase proceeded to a jury trial. On May 8, 2017, the jury convicted Daneshvar of Count 1, but\nfound him not guilty of Counts 2 and 3. Daneshvar filed a motion for a new trial, and the district\ncourt denied the motion. On January 18, 2018, the court sentenced Daneshvar to 24 months of\nimprisonment followed by three years of supervised release and a restitution amount of\n$900,000. Daneshvar timely appealed.\n\n II. DISCUSSION\n\n Daneshvar raises ten grounds for reversal premised on the following four areas of alleged\nerror: (1) the district court abused its discretion in excluding certain evidence; (2) the judge\nimproperly gave two Sixth Circuit criminal pattern jury instructions and one preliminary jury\ninstruction; (3) the judge should have provided a supplemental instruction to the jury after the\njury, during its deliberations, posed a question to the court; and (4) the district court abused its\ndiscretion when sentencing Daneshvar. We address each category in turn.\n\n A. Evidentiary Issues\n\n We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, which occurred\nif it made “errors of law or clear errors of factual determination.” United States v. Baker,\n458 F.3d 513, 517 n.6 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However,\n“[w]hen a party fails to object to evidence at the trial court, his contention on appeal will prevail\nonly if the trial court's evidentiary decision was plainly erroneous, thus affecting his substantial\nrights and resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 517. Here, as in Baker and Peak v.\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 9\n\n\nKubota Tractor Corp., 559 F. App’x 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2014), “[t]he decision as to the correct\nstandard of review will not affect the outcome of this appeal.” Baker, 458 F.3d at 517.2\n\n Moreover, even if we were to find that the court incorrectly excluded the evidence, “this\ndoes not automatically result in a new trial.” United States v. Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d 365, 378 (6th\nCir. 2015). Exclusion of the evidence must have “materially affect[ed] the verdict.” United\nStates v. English, 785 F.3d 1052, 1056 (6th Cir. 2015); Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d at 378 (“Non-\nconstitutional errors are subject to Rule 52(a) harmless error analysis: the government must\nshow by a preponderance of the evidence that the error did not materially affect the verdict.”\n(emphasis in original)).\n\n i. Admission of the December 27, 2012, Email\n\n Daneshvar’s defense was that he was ignorant of the fraud at Mobile Doctors. In support,\ndefense counsel moved to admit an email chain through Daneshvar’s testimony. The email,\ndated December 27, 2012, was sent from Melissa Meredith (the branch manager for Mobile\nDoctors at the Southfield, Michigan office) to Dike Ajiri (Mobile Doctors’s president) stating, in\npart:\n\n [W]e don’t want [the doctors] asking too many questions about billing etc.\n [L]et[’s] just keep them in the dark, we cover their liability, let us cover ourselves\n and that’s the end of it! We do not brow beat them with mundane details and we\n give creative control for the treatment of [patients] unless, it[‘s] something that\n will harm the [patient] or us. I think we should operate with [standing orders for\n tests] the same way. They are not stupid, they know we make money off of\n tests[,] but they also know that it is helping the [patient], that’s why they agree to\n it.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n Daneshvar argues that the abuse-of-discretion standard does not extend to the exclusion of\ncrucial, relevant evidence establishing a valid defense. In support, Daneshvar cites to United States v.\nRiley, 550 F.2d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 1977). Daneshvar misunderstands the holding in Riley. The Fifth\nCircuit held that, “[a]lthough the trial judge is traditionally accorded a wide range of discretion in the\nadmission of evidence, it is axiomatic that such discretion does not extend to the exclusion of crucial\nrelevant evidence establishing a valid defense. Id. at 236 (citation omitted). In other words, the Fifth\nCircuit held that a district court abuses its discretion if it excludes crucial relevant evidence establishing a\nvalid defense—not that the abuse-of-discretion standard does not apply.\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 10\n\n\n Sometimes too much can be harmful. Where did I hear that before? Oh\n yeah, it was you!\n\n(Trial Exs., R. 118, Page ID # 1700.)\n\n On appeal, Daneshvar argues that the district court erred in excluding the email on\nrelevance and hearsay grounds. We agree with Daneshvar that the email was relevant, see Fed.\nR. Evid. 401, but we disagree that it was admissible as Daneshvar argues under the business\nrecord and residual hearsay exceptions, see Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), 807, and the opposing party\nstatement hearsay exclusion, see Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).\n\n a. Relevance\n\n First, as to relevance, the district court appeared to indicate that because the government\nhad already presented evidence demonstrating that Daneshvar knew of the fraudulent billing, the\nemail exchange discussing keeping doctors in the dark about billing was irrelevant. In other\nwords, the district judge treated the government’s evidence as conclusively establishing a fact,\nnotwithstanding any contrary evidence. This ruling was in error. Daneshvar’s counsel sought to\nintroduce the email to rebut the government’s evidence of the knowledge that the doctors,\nincluding Daneshvar, had of Mobile Doctors’s billing practices. Therefore, the email had a\ntendency to make a fact—the doctors’ apparent knowledge of Mobile Doctors’s billing\npractices—“more or less probable.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. The jury should have been allowed to\nconsider the email in light of the government’s proof, and then determine what weight to assign\nto each piece of evidence.\n\n We need not resolve, however, whether the district court’s erroneous finding that the\nemail was irrelevant materially affected the verdict because the district court properly excluded\nthe email on another ground: hearsay. As explained below, none of the hearsay exceptions or\nexclusion cited by Daneshvar apply.\n\n b. Records of a Regularly Conducted Business Activity\n\n Both before the district court and upon appeal, Daneshvar argued that the email is\nadmissible as a business record. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), a business record\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 11\n\n\nmust have been: (a) made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person\nwith knowledge; (b) kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity; and (c) made\nas part of a regular practice of the business. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Moreover, all of these\nconditions must be shown by the testimony of a qualified witness. Id.\n\n An email is not a business record for purposes of the relevant hearsay exception simply\nbecause it was sent between two employees in a company or because employees regularly\nconduct business through emails; such evidence alone is insufficient to show that the email is a\nrecord, made as “a regular practice” of the company, Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(C), and that “the\nrecord was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business,” id. at 803(6)(B).\n“[I]t would be insufficient to survive a hearsay challenge simply to say that since a business\nkeeps and receives e-mails, then ergo all those e-mails are business records falling with the ambit\nof Rule 803(6)(B).” United States v. Cone, 714 F.3d 197, 220 (4th Cir. 2013). If that were the\ncase, then every single email sent within any company would fall within the exception. This\nresult would obviate the entire purpose of the business records exception, which is designed for a\nlimited category of records—namely those that are regularly produced as a part of a company’s\nbusiness activities.\n\n Of course, an email can qualify as an admissible record of a regularly conducted business\nactivity as long as the proponent satisfies the requirements of Rule 803(6). But, it was no abuse\nof discretion for the district court to find that those requirements were not met here. We affirm\nthe district court’s holding that the email “was not a business record [admissible under Rule\n803(6)], but rather a form of conversation”—that is, a one-time discussion regarding what to tell\ndoctors—as this holding was based on no clearly erroneous factual finding or erroneous\ninterpretation of law. (Op. Denying Mot. for New Trial, R. 86, Page ID # 435.).3\n\n c. Residual Hearsay Exception\n\n We also find that the district court did not err when declining to admit the email pursuant\nto the residual clause of the hearsay rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 807. One of the requirements\n\n\n 3\n Moreover, Daneshvar did not offer a qualified witness to testify concerning the requirements of the\nbusiness record exception. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(D).\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 12\n\n\nof Rule 807 is that the evidence being offered “is more probative on the point for which it is\noffered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.” Fed.\nR. Evid. 807(a)(3). At trial, Daneshvar repeatedly put forth evidence that the company’s doctors\nwere not made aware of Mobile Doctors’s final billing processes. For instance, Dr. Mason\ntestified that he was “in the dark” about Mobile Doctors’s billing. (Trial Tr. Vol. 4, R. 111, Page\nID # 1197.) Physician-employee Dr. Leonard VanGelder likewise testified that he did not have\nanything to do with actual billing, which was handled by the Chicago office. Daneshvar\nsimilarly testified in his own defense.\n\n The testimony of these witnesses precludes reliance on the residual exception. That is,\nDaneshvar has not demonstrated that the email is more probative than is the testimony for the\nfact that the doctors did not know about Mobile Doctors’s billing practices. Daneshvar argues on\nappeal that the email has more probative value because it was sent by a “neutral” source, rather\nthan the physicians themselves. However, the jury learned of the actual email, as well as its\ncontents, during the questioning of Dr. Mason when he was asked, “[W]ere you shown an email\nfrom Melissa Meredith to Dike Ajiri saying precisely that, I’m not reading it verbatim, but we’re\ndoing the best we can to keep the doctors in the dark about billing?” (Trial Tr. Vol. 4, R. 111,\nPage ID # 1196–97.) Thus, Daneshvar’s point—that the company’s management was hiding its\nbilling practices from the doctors—could have been, and in fact was, made through the witnesses\nat trial. It was therefore no abuse of discretion for the district court to hold that the email was\ninadmissible under Rule 807.4\n\n d. Co-Conspirator Exclusion\n\n For the first time on appeal, Daneshvar also argues that the email is not hearsay because\nit was a statement made by his co-conspirators, and therefore excluded from the hearsay\ndefinition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). Daneshvar misapplies this Rule,\n\n\n 4\n Even if the district court’s exclusion of the email had been in error, it would constitute harmless error. As\nnoted, the substance of the email was already admitted, through Dr. Mason’s testimony, at trial. See generally\nUnited States v. Schaeffer, 626 F. App’x 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that “even assuming that [a] letter was\nadmissible as a statement against interest under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) or under the residual hearsay exception, Fed.\nR. Evid. 807, the evidence against [the defendant] on the count to which [the] letter related was overwhelming and\nthe letter offered only weak support to [the defendant’s] case”).\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 13\n\n\nwhich states that “[t]he statement [must be] offered against an opposing party” and must have\nbeen “made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Fed. R.\nEvid. 801(d)(2), (d)(2)(E). Daneshvar incorrectly seeks to use his own co-conspirators’\nstatements on his behalf, not against an opposing party. Moreover, even if Daneshvar were\nsomehow using the statements against the government, the statements were not made by “[that]\nparty’s coconspirator”—that is, the statements were not made by the government’s\ncoconspirators. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Thus, the email does not fall within Rule\n801(d)(2)(E) and there was no abuse of discretion to exclude it as hearsay by the district court.\n\n ii. Admission of Joel Trombley’s and Daneshvar’s Testimony\n\n Defense counsel attempted to elicit testimony from both Daneshvar and Joel Trombley\nregarding Daneshvar’s work at a later employer, the American Health Care Network (AHCN).\nTrombley was employed as a medical assistant by Mobile Doctors and then worked with\nDaneshvar at AHCN. Defense counsel attempted to establish that after Daneshvar left Mobile\nDoctors for AHCN, he became more involved in the billing process, began to scrutinize bills to\nmake sure they were accurate, and “that once he learned, once he saw what happened he changed\nhis ways.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 6, R. 113, Page ID # 1437.) The government objected on the grounds\nof relevance, and the court sustained the objection. The court determined that “how [Daneshvar]\nconducted himself at a subsequent place of employment is not relevant to the issue in this case”\nbecause this “case involves what happened with Mobile Doctors.” (Id.)\n\n On appeal, Daneshvar argues that he offered the AHCN evidence as “reverse Rule 404(b)\nevidence.” Daneshvar points out that our circuit has recognized that reverse 404(b) evidence is\nwhen “the evidence of a prior act by another is offered as exculpatory evidence by the defendant,\ninstead of being used by a prosecutor against a defendant.” United States v. Lucas, 357 F.3d\n599, 605 (6th Cir. 2004). However, in Lucas, we held that “the Advisory Committee Notes\nfollowing Rule 401 explain that rules such as Rule 404 and those that follow it are meant to\nprohibit certain types of evidence that are otherwise clearly ‘relevant evidence.’” Id. Thus, at\nthe outset, we must determine whether the evidence is relevant under Rule 401, and if so,\nwhether it should nonetheless be excluded as improper propensity evidence pursuant to Rule\n404(b).\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 14\n\n\n We agree with the district court that evidence of Daneshvar’s conduct after he left Mobile\nDoctors is not relevant, as the fraud and conspiracy at issue occurred only while Daneshvar was\nat Mobile Doctors. Daneshvar’s post-Mobile Doctors evidence is not that of his potentially\nexculpatory actions undertaken prior or during the time of the fraud, but rather, pertain to\nactivities conducted after the fraud ended. Thus, even if Daneshvar employed legal billing\npractices after his time at Mobile Doctors, that fact does not change or alter the evidence\npresented regarding his actions while conspiring to commit fraud at Mobile Doctors.\n\n Moreover, we have held that “[f]or the same reason that prior ‘bad acts’ may not be used\nto show a predisposition to commit crimes, prior ‘good acts’ generally may not be used to show a\npredisposition not to commit crimes.” United States v. Dimora, 750 F.3d 619, 630 (6th Cir.\n2014). Even considering the merits of Daneshvar’s argument that his post-Mobile Doctors\nconduct tended to make his lack of intent more probable, which is an acceptable purpose for\nadmission under Rule 404(b), the evidence of Daneshvar’s future billing practices does not\nqualify as “reverse 404(b).” Daneshvar’s attention to billing after he left Mobile Doctors is not\n“evidence of a prior act by another,” Lucas, 357 F.3d at 605 (emphasis added), but rather, is\nevidence of his own future acts. See also United States v. Armstrong, 436 F. App’x 501, 503\n(6th Cir. 2011) (“[E]vidence of a prior act by another is offered as exculpatory evidence by the\ndefendant, instead of being used by a prosecutor against a defendant.” (emphasis added))\n(citation omitted); United States v. Clark, 377 F. App’x 451, 458 (6th Cir. 2010) (same); United\nStates v. Robinson, 272 F. App’x 421, 430 (6th Cir. 2007) (analyzing reverse 404(b) as\n“evidence of prior acts of a third party offered by a defendant” (emphasis added)).\n\n Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of\nDaneshvar’s billing conduct after he left Mobile Doctors.\n\n iii. Admission of the Summary Charts\n\n Daneshvar also argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it excluded\ntwo proposed summary exhibits that Daneshvar sought to admit through his own testimony. We\ndisagree.\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 15\n\n\n On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned the government case agent about two\nexhibits admitted into evidence during the government’s case-in-chief. These exhibits compiled\nthe Medicare data for Mobile Doctors and displayed each doctor-employee’s total Medicare\nbillings and number of home visits. (Trial Exs., R. 135, Page ID # 1984–86, 1989–90.) The\ncharts showed that Daneshvar billed over $1.4 million to Medicare, more than any other\nphysician employed by Mobile Doctors, and that he visited the greatest number of patients, as\ncompared to the other doctors. Defense counsel asked the government case agent to use both of\nthe exhibits to calculate the average amount that Daneshvar had billed to Medicare per patient\nand then compare it to the same calculation for the other physicians. This arithmetic yielded the\naverage amount that each physician billed to Medicare per patient. The agent agreed that “by\nlooking at the charts,” he “would say yes,” the average amount billed to Medicare per patient\nvisit was higher for other doctors than for Daneshvar. (Trial Tr. Vol. 5, R. 112, Page ID # 1393.)\n\n The next day, defense counsel sought to introduce into evidence two summary exhibits\nlisting the same calculation for each doctor and his or her average amount billed to Medicare per\npatient. The government objected on relevance grounds, and defense counsel responded that in\nlight of government making “a big point about how [Daneshvar’s] amount of money” billed to\nMedicare was at least $1.4 million, the proposed charts show that Dr. Guzman “had a lot higher\nratio of how much money was billed per patient visit than Dr. Daneshvar.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 6, R.\n113, Page ID # 1480–81.) Thus, the charts “show[] that Dr. Daneshvar, while he had a very\nlarge number of visits, the amount of money billed for his visits put him about fifth or sixth” as\ncompared to the other physician’s billings per patient visit. (Id.)\n\n The district judge remarked that Dr. Guzman was not on trial and held that “[t]he fact that\nsome other doctor billed even more per visit is irrelevant to what this doctor did.” (Id. at Page\nID # 1483.) After some back-and-forth, defense counsel again attempted to explain the\nrelevance of the summary exhibits, stating, “The government brings in summary exhibits and\nthey argue from them through their witness about what a big crook he is, and then I’m prohibited\nfrom showing that with the same numbers . . . Dr. Daneshvar is fifth of the group . . . .” (Id. at\nPage ID # 1484.) The court responded that “according to your theory, if they are all crooks, he\n[Daneshvar] rated number five as a crook. Somebody was more crooked than he was.” (Id.)\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 16\n\n\nDefense counsel responded that this was not his theory and contended, “It’s just to contradict\n[the government’s] chart. I mean why is their chart admissible to show he got all of this money,\nand I can’t explain the difference . . . ?” (Id.) The court nonetheless denied Daneshvar’s request\non relevance grounds and prohibited defense counsel from asking any more questions about the\ncalculation. (Id. at 1486.)\n\n On appeal, Daneshvar argues that the summary charts were relevant and admissible\npursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, which allows for the use of a summary, chart, or\ncalculation. Daneshvar cites to United States v. Bray, 139 F.3d 1104, 1109 (6th Cir. 1998)\n(internal quotation marks and citations omitted) for the proposition that “the proponent of the\nsummary must also have made the documents available” to the other side so the opposing party\ncan “attack the authenticity or accuracy of a chart, summary, or calculation, with an opportunity\nto prepare for cross-examination, or to offer exhibits of its own as rebuttal evidence, which\nwould serve to counteract the impression made on the jury by the proponent’s witness.” Finally,\nDaneshvar argues that the court denied him his constitutional right to present evidence on his\nown behalf by prohibiting him from asking questions about the arithmetic calculation.\n\n Even if we were to agree with Daneshvar that the summary charts and the corresponding\ncalculations were relevant and admissible, thus finding that the district court erred, such error\nwas harmless because Daneshvar elicited the same information for the jury’s benefit earlier in\nthe trial. As detailed earlier, Daneshvar elicited information concerning how much he billed to\nMedicare on average per patient visit, as compared to the other physicians, during his counsel’s\ncross-examination of the government’s case agent. Also, at closing argument, Daneshvar’s\ncounsel argued that the government exhibits did not\n\n make an attempt to show how much money was billed by Mobile Doctors per\n patient visit. That’s what they didn’t do. So you—because I was able to do it\n with my Mumford High School arithmetic, you can do it yourself. You can take\n those numbers. You don’t need to make it exact, and you can divide how many\n visits into how much billing was generated.\n\n(Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1774.) Thus, the jury was presented with the very facts that\nDaneshvar’s counsel wanted to convey with his proposed exhibits.\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 17\n\n\n Furthermore, “the evidence against [Daneshvar] on the count to which [the summary\ncharts] related was overwhelming and [the summary charts] offered only weak support to\n[Daneshvar’s] case.” Schaeffer, 626 F. App’x at 609. Even if Daneshvar was not the top\nfraudulent biller to Medicare per patient visit, the evidence demonstrates that he nevertheless\nbilled fraudulently to Medicare. That he billed less per patient than the other doctors is only\n“weak support” for his argument. Id.\n\n Consequently, we find that any alleged error regarding the district court’s ruling on the\ndefense’s proposed summary charts constitutes harmless error.\n\n B. Jury Instructions\n\n For the first time on appeal, Daneshvar argues that it was error for the trial judge to give\ncertain jury instructions; in particular, he takes issue with three instructions. Because Daneshvar\n“did not object to the district court’s jury instructions, we review for plain error.” United States\nv. Carmago-Antonio, 541 F. App’x 678, 679 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v.\nNewsom, 452 F.3d 593, 605 (6th Cir. 2006)); Fed. R. Crim. P. 30(d). “In the context of\nchallenges to jury instructions, plain error requires a finding that, taken as a whole, the jury\ninstructions were so clearly erroneous as to likely produce a grave miscarriage of justice.”\nUnited States v. Semrau, 693 F.3d 510, 528 (6th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation\nomitted).\n\n i. Deliberate-Ignorance Jury Instruction\n\n The district judge read the following instruction to the jury:\n\n Now I want to explain something about proving a defendant’s knowledge. No\n one can avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring the obvious. If\n you are convinced that the defendant deliberately ignored a high probability that\n Mobile Doctors was engaged in a fraud, you may find that he knew that Mobile\n Doctors was engaged in a fraud.\n\n But to find this you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the\n defendant was aware of a high probability that Mobile Doctors was engaged in\n fraud and that defendant deliberately closed his eyes to what was obvious.\n Carelessness or negligence or foolishness on his part is not the same as\n knowledge and is not enough to convict. This, of course, is all for you to decide.\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 18\n\n\n(Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1815–16.)\n\n Daneshvar concedes that this instruction mirrors the Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction\n2.09, with no modification, which is used to define the “knowledge” requirement for the charged\noffenses.5 However, he argues that our circuit has held “that the decision to give this instruction\nis to be approached with significant prudence and caution. More specifically, we have noted that\nthe instruction should not be given routinely because of the risk of a conviction based on mere\nnegligence, carelessness or ignorance.” United States v. Mitchell, 681 F.3d 867, 876 (6th Cir.\n2012) (citing Mari, 47 F.3d at 785). We have said that the instruction should “be used\nsparingly.” Geisen, 612 F.3d at 486. Daneshvar argues that this is an instance in which the\ninstruction should not have been given because the government did not provide evidence that he\ndeliberately turned a blind eye to Mobile Doctors’s activities.\n\n “This is not, of course, our first encounter with this instruction.” Mitchell, 681 F.3d at\n876. “What [Daneshvar] challenges . . . is the propriety, in light of the evidence presented at\ntrial, of giving the instruction at all. He contends that the jury could not have within reason\nfound, based on the evidence, that he was deliberately ignorant of the existence of the [Medicare\nfraud].” Mari, 47 F.3d at 785. We resolved the issue raised by Daneshvar in Mari, and we are\nbound by that decision to hold that the district court did not commit plain error in giving the\ninstruction. See id at 785–86 (explaining rationale for the instruction and circumstances in\nwhich, even if the instruction was given mistakenly, “giving the Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury\nInstruction on deliberate ignorance was harmless as a matter of law”).\n\n ii. Conspiracy Jury Instruction\n\n The district court also read the following jury instruction to the jury:\n\n If you are convinced there was a criminal agreement, then you must decide\n whether the government has proved that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily\n joined that agreement. To convict the defendant, the government must prove that\n he knew the conspiracy’s main purpose, that he voluntarily joined it intending to\n help or achieve its goals.\n 5\n We have repeatedly held that this instruction is an accurate statement of the law. See, e.g., United States\nv. Geisen, 612 F.3d 471, 486 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Beaty, 245 F.3d 617, 622 (6th Cir. 2001); United\nStates v. Mari, 47 F.3d 782, 785 (6th Cir. 1995).\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 19\n\n\n This does not require proof that the defendant knew everything about the\n conspiracy or everyone else involved or that he was a member of it from the very\n beginning. Nor does it require proof that the defendant played a major role in the\n conspiracy or that his connection to it was substantial. A slight role or connection\n may be enough.\n\n(Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1817–18.)\n\n This instruction is identical to the Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 3.03. Daneshvar\nargues that we “should take this opportunity to disavow the jury instruction” (Appellant Br. at\n40), and in doing so, he makes the same argument as in United States v. Mahbub, 818 F.3d 213,\n230 (6th Cir. 2016), where the defendant contended that the jury instruction lowers the burden of\nproof. In Mahbub, we held:\n\n [The defendant’s] contention lacks merit. The instruction states, and the district\n court read, “[a] slight role or connection may be enough” to link a defendant to a\n conspiracy, which is an accurate legal proposition. See United States v. Price,\n 258 F.3d 539, 544 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The connection of the defendant to the\n conspiracy need only be slight, if there is sufficient evidence to establish that\n connection beyond a reasonable doubt.”); United States v. Betancourt, 838 F.2d\n 168, 174 (6th Cir. 1988) (“The existence of a connection to the conspiracy must\n be shown beyond a reasonable doubt, but the importance of the connection need\n not be great.”). To the extent that the disputed language lowers the burden of\n proof to support a conviction, we note that “no single provision of the jury\n instruction can be read in isolation;” instead, “the charge must be considered as a\n whole.” United States v. Horton, 847 F.2d 313, 322 (6th Cir. 1988).\n\nId. We determined that “the district court made it abundantly clear that the reasonable-doubt\nstandard applied in determining whether [the defendant] should be found guilty of criminal\nconspiracy” by using the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the jury instructions. Id.\n\n Daneshvar argues that unlike in Mahbub, “the rest of the jury instructions in this case\ncombined to relieve the government of its high standard of proof and replace it with speculation\nand probabilities.” (Appellant Br. at 39.) We do not find that Daneshvar’s argument has merit,\nlet alone establishes that the district court committed plain error. As in Mahbub, the district\ncourt here repeatedly used the reasonable-doubt standard. Before beginning the conspiracy\nsection, the court stated: “A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership. For you to find the\ndefendant guilty of the conspiracy charge, the government must prove each and every one of the\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 20\n\n\nfollowing elements beyond a reasonable doubt . . . .” (Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1816.)\nAgain, the court stated, “You must be convinced that the government has proved all of these\nelements beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the conspiracy\ncharge.” (Id. at Page ID # 1817.)\n\n Although Daneshvar points out that other circuits do not use the phrase “slight evidence,”\nour circuit continues to do so, so long as, considering the jury instructions as a whole, the\ninstructions do not lower the burden of proof. See Mahbub, 818 F.3d at 230; see also United\nStates v. Price, 258 F.3d 539, 544 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The connection of the defendant to the\nconspiracy need only be slight, if there is sufficient evidence to establish that connection beyond\na reasonable doubt.”). Upon reviewing the jury instructions as a whole, including the district\ncourt’s repeated use of the reasonable-doubt standard, we find that the instructions did not lower\nthe burden of proof.6 Thus, we find no error in the use of the conspiracy jury instruction.\n\n iii. Presumption of Innocence Preliminary Jury Instruction\n\n At the start of the trial, the district court provided the parties with a set of preliminary\njury instructions the court intended to use, and neither side objected. One of these instructions\nread:\n\n Now, there are some basic rules about a criminal case you must keep in mind.\n First, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The indictment\n against a defendant is only an accusation, nothing more. It’s not proof of guilt or\n anything else. The defendant, therefore, starts out the case with a clean slate.\n\n(Trial Tr. Vol I, R. 108, Page ID # 612–13.)7\n\n\n\n 6\n Daneshvar argues that the deliberate-indifference jury instruction, combined with the conspiracy jury\ninstruction that was given, lowers the burden of proof. But other than arguing, as we discussed above, that the\ngovernment failed to present evidence that he acted with deliberate indifference, Daneshvar presents no other\nargument or evidence that the deliberate-indifference jury instruction can lower the burden of proof. We find that\nthis sort of conclusory statement is, “bereft of factual and legal support, [thus, Daneshvar] has not properly\ndeveloped this argument.” Gafurova v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 321, 328 (6th Cir. 2018). Similarly, Daneshvar, in one\nsentence of his brief, argues that the use of the words “natural and probable” by the district court in the jury\ninstructions resulted in lowering the burden of proof. Again, he presents no other argument or authority for support.\nThus, we hold that Daneshvar has forfeited these arguments.\n 7\n The instructions are copied from those in the model preliminary jury instructions for criminal trials\npublished in the Benchbook for federal district judges. See Federal Judicial Center, Benchbook for U.S. District\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 21\n\n\n Daneshvar argues that this instruction does not mirror that found in the Sixth Circuit\nPattern Criminal Jury Instruction 1.03, which states that the “presumption of innocence stays\nwith [the defendant] unless the government presents evidence here in court that overcomes the\npresumption.” In particular, Daneshvar takes issue with the district court’s use of the word\n“until,” in comparison to the pattern jury instruction’s use of the word “unless.”\n\n Daneshvar has not established plain error from the district court’s preliminary\ninstructions. The Supreme Court has stated that the use of the word “until” in the following\ninstruction is “quite correct”:\n\n The defendant is presumed to be innocent of all the charges against him until he\n is proven guilty by the evidence submitted to you. This presumption remains with\n the defendant until such time, in the progress of the case, that you are satisfied of\n the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt . . . . Every man is presumed to be innocent\n until he is proved guilty, and this legal presumption of innocence is to be regarded\n by the jury in this case as matter of evidence, to the benefit of which the party is\n entitled.\n\nAgnew v. United States, 165 U.S. 36, 51 (1897) (emphasis added).\n\n As in Agnew, in which the jury instructions included phrases such as “guilt beyond a\nreasonable doubt” and “presum[ption] of innocence,” the context of the instructions in the instant\ncase demonstrates that Daneshvar was presumed innocent as the trial began. The district court\nstated that Daneshvar “starts out the case with a clean slate,” that he had “no burden to prove\ninnocence,” and that “the government must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable\ndoubt.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 1, R. 108, Page ID # 613.) Thus, the instruction, “especially when\nconsidered in its context,” was not improper. United States v. Hynes, 467 F.3d 951, 956–57 (6th\nCir. 2006) (“But even if the isolated statement could be interpreted as improper, the district court\navoided any prejudice to [the defendant] by twice instructing the jury on the presumption of\ninnocence.”).\n\n We also note, as Daneshvar concedes, that the district court told the jury there would be\n“further instructions” later, and he used the “unless” phrase at the end of the trial, when he\n\n\nCourt Judges § 2.07 (6th ed. 2013). We have recognized that judges should use this Benchbook. See United States\nv. McDowell, 814 F.2d 245, 249–50 (6th Cir. 1987).\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 22\n\n\ndelivered jury instructions prior to the jury deliberation period. (See Trial Tr. Vol. 1, R. 108,\nPage ID # 613; Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1808.)\n\n In sum, we do not find that the jury instruction is clearly or obviously incorrect so as to\nconstitute plain error.\n\n C. Response to Jurors’ Question\n\n Daneshvar also raises issue with the district court’s response to the jurors’ question,\nwhich was posed to the court during the middle of jury deliberations. Daneshvar argues that,\nafter the foreperson asked this question, the court failed to clarify the issue concerning the legal\ndefinition of conspiracy.\n\n We find no error in the district court’s response to the jury. To explain our reasoning, we\nrecount below the exchange between the district judge and the jury, and between the judge and\nparties’ counsel, during jury deliberations.\n\n On the second day of deliberations, the jury requested readback of certain pieces of\ntestimony. Later in the day, the court received a note from the jury stating: “We have reached\nour verdict on Counts 2 and 3 SOLID. We are at a hard hung jury on Count 1, no budging.\nPlease advise.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 9, R. 78, Page ID # 341.) At first, both defense counsel and the\ngovernment requested an Allen charge,8 but then, both parties agreed with the court’s suggestion\nto first speak to the foreperson. The court told the foreperson that, “[i]n my experience, you\nhaven’t deliberated very long.” (Id. at Page ID # 342). The court then asked, “Is it your view\nthat there’s a question that could be answered possibly or a portion of a testimony that could be\nread possibly that might I suppose I would say achieve movement?” (Id.)\n\n The foreperson responded that the jurors were “getting hung up a little bit on the\nconspiracy.” (Id. at Page ID # 343.) The foreperson asked, “So is conspiracy—how do I\ndescribe this—can it be Mobile Doctors, the company as a whole? Does that make sense?” (Id.)\nThe court responded, “Well, there’s an instruction on what constitutes conspiracy.” (Id.) The\n\n 8\n In Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), the Supreme Court approved the use of a jury instruction\nintended to prevent a hung jury by encouraging jurors to render a verdict. This instruction has now become known\nas the Allen charge.\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 23\n\n\nforeperson then remarked that “[t]here’s a lot of variables to it that some rather than others are\nhaving more difficulty with.” (Id.)\n\n The court next inquired as to whether “my rereading a portion of the instruction would be\nhelpful?” (Id.) The foreperson replied that “it might be,” and directed the court to a portion of\nthe jury instructions that was the issue. (Id. at Page ID # 343–44.) The foreperson stated that\n“some of the jurors feel that . . . ,” but, before the foreperson or court could proceed further, the\ngovernment requested a sidebar. (Id. at Page ID # 344.) The court sent the foreperson back to\nthe jury room.\n\n The government attorney explained that she was afraid the foreperson would reveal what\nthe jurors had been deliberating. The judge responded that the foreperson was “telling me that\nthere’s a hang-up on what this means.” (Id. at 345.) The judge then said, “Let me suggest\nsomething to you. [T]he note I just got does not come as a surprise to the Court. [I]f this is a\nhung jury, the likelihood of you retrying this case is not very great.” (Id.) When the government\nattorney protested to this characterization, the judge responded, “[w]ell, I’m telling you, you may\nhave some problems in that regard, I don’t know. But I think you ought to let her [the\nforeperson] elaborate.” (Id.)\n\n The government attorney then expressed concern that when the foreperson started to use\nthe phrase “some of us,” the foreperson was about to reveal information about what the jurors\nhad been deliberating about. (Id. at 346.) The judge responded, “I don’t know what she’s going\nto say. I’ve asked her if the Court can give her any assistance. And she can tell us, and I can say\nI can’t respond to that. That’s not revealing what—she’s revealing what the hang up is and she’s\nsuggesting that the instructions are inadequate is what she’s saying.” (Id.)\n\n Defense counsel remarked that it appeared the jury was having trouble understanding\nwhether Daneshvar “[c]an . . . be convicted of conspiring with the entity Mobile Doctors[.]\n[A]nd the answer to that is no, you can’t conspire with an entity.” (Id.) The judge responded, “I\ndon’t know what she was saying then. We started over.” (Id.) Defense counsel again reiterated\nwhat he believed to be the foreperson’s question and added that “if they’re having problems with\nthe instruction, . . . all the court can do is say, ‘you have the instructions.’” (Id. at Page ID #\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 24\n\n\n346–47.) The court responded, “I understand that I cannot comment. I can only listen to her and\nthen see what she has to say and then either say, ‘I—I appreciate what you’re saying,’” and then\neither remind the jury to “take the instructions as a whole” and “can’t single out any one or\nmore,” or “hear out” the foreperson. (Id.) Defense counsel agreed and stated, “I’m good with\nthat.” (Id. at 347, 348 (“That’s fine with me . . .”).)\n\n At this point, the court summoned the foreperson, and asked, “tell me now, what is it . . .\nthat concerns the panel?” (Id. at 348.) The foreperson responded, “So, before I do that, can I tell\nyou about the conversation we just had . . . ?” (Id.) The foreperson then explained that “[s]ome\npeople don’t think all the variables were made in Count 1 and they . . . [are] not going to come\noff that opinion.” (Id.) The foreperson pointed out where in the jury instructions some jurors\nfelt as though “[n]ot all of those [elements] have been made in this juror’s eyes.” (Id. at Page ID\n# 348–50.) The court reacted by sending the foreperson back into the jury deliberation room and\nagain conferring with the parties.\n\n During the sidebar, defense counsel “recommend[ed] that the Court take the verdict as to\nCounts 2 and 3 and declare a hung jury as to Count 1.” (Id. at Page ID # 350.) The government\nopposed this recommendation, requesting instead an Allen charge because the jury had “only\nbeen deliberating for three hours yesterday and four or five hours today.” (Id.) After the court\nagreed to give the Allen charge, defense counsel responded, “I’m a little worried of a rushed\nverdict, although it sure doesn’t sound like it will be one. But if we would give them the Allen\ncharge, I’m fine, and then let them go and come back Monday.” (Id. at Page ID # 350–51.)\nThough the court at first resisted the defense’s adjournment request, ultimately the court agreed,\npreviewed the Allen charge for the parties, and asked if it was okay. Both counsel agreed it was\nacceptable.\n\n The court then read the jurors the Allen charge and sent them home for the weekend. The\nfollowing Monday, May 8, 2017, the jury returned their verdict.\n\n On appeal, Daneshvar argues that the verdict was improper because the district court\nshould have given a supplemental instruction defining conspiracy. The government responds\nthat Danehvar’s challenge to the district court’s response should begin and end with waiver\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 25\n\n\nbecause defense counsel intentionally relinquished any objection to the court’s ultimate decision\nto read the Allen charge and make no other supplemental instruction. We agree.\n\n In United States v. Budd, 496 F.3d 517, 529 (6th Cir. 2007), we held that even when\ncounsel had raised objections to the jury instructions, his subsequent statement that he was\n“comfortable” with the instructions meant that he “cannot now complain about the court’s\nexplanation of the Fourteenth Amendment standard.” Here, not only did defense counsel state\nthat he was “fine” with the Allen charge, but also, after the foreperson asked whether “it”\n(presumably, the conspiracy) could be “Mobile Doctors, the company as a whole,” Daneshvar’s\ncounsel responded with: “[A]ll the court can do is say, ‘you have the instructions.’” (Id. at Page\nID # 346–47, 350–51.) Thus, at no point did defense counsel ask for a supplemental jury\ninstruction regarding conspiracy and in fact, counsel asked the judge to reread the conspiracy\njury instructions as the court had initially delivered them.\n\n True, in United States v. Nunez, 889 F.2d 1564, 1568 (6th Cir. 1989), we held that\n“[w]hen a jury indicates confusion about an important legal issue, it is not sufficient for the court\nto rely on more general statements in its prior charge.” However, we further stated that “[t]he\ngovernment is mistaken in stating that [the defendant] never raised the issue of whether an\nagreement only between him and [the DEA agent] would be sufficient. [The defendant’s]\nattorney made this very point in his closing argument. Furthermore, the jury raised the issue, and\nthat imposed a duty upon the trial judge to respond.” Id. at 1569.\n\n Unlike the defense attorney in Nunez, defense counsel here did not raise the particular\nissue that he now claims confused the jury. Second, and more importantly, the foreperson in\nNunez clearly asked a question regarding the applicable law: “Can [the defendant] make an\nagreement with [the DEA agent] to satisfy the agreement element in a conspiracy?” Id. at 1567.\nThe Nunez foreperson also asked, “Can [the DEA agent] be considered a co-conspirator?” Id. In\nthe case at hand, by contrast, the first time the foreperson appeared before the district court, she\nasked, “So is conspiracy . . . can it be Mobile Doctors, the company as a whole?” (Trial Tr. Vol.\n9, R. 78, Page ID # 343.) The second time the foreperson appeared before the court, she did not\nask a question. She clarified that the hang-up was that “[s]ome people don’t think all of the\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 26\n\n\nvariables were made in Count 1 and they . . . [are] not going to come off that opinion.” (Id. at\n348.)\n\n It is not clear to us that the jury asked a question in the instant case so as to be considered\nthe sort of definite inquiry giving rise to a supplemental instruction as was the case in Nunez.\nWe found in Nunez that “[t]he jury pointedly asked if [the DEA agent] could be a co-conspirator\nand if an agreement between [the defendant] and [the DEA agent] would ‘satisfy the agreement\nelement in the conspiracy.’” 889 F.2d at 1569 (emphasis added). Here, the foreperson’s\nquestion did not reference Daneshvar at all, let alone ask whether Daneshvar could conspire with\nMobile Doctors under the applicable law regarding conspiracy. The trial judge also did not\nindicate that he understood defense counsel’s interpretation of the juror question—that the jury\nwanted to know if Daneshvar could conspire with Mobile Doctors—to be what the foreperson\nasked. (Trial Tr. Vol. 9, R. 78, Page ID # 346 (“I don’t know what she was saying then.”).)\n\n In Nunez, we clarified that “the propriety of a supplemental instruction must be measured\n‘by whether it fairly responds to the jury’s inquiry without creating . . . prejudice.’” Id. at 1568\n(quoting United States v. Giacalone, 588 F.2d 1158, 1166 (6th Cir. 1978)). Here, the district\njudge twice asked the foreperson to explain the question premised on the jury confusion, and\nthus, the judge attempted to understand the question. In fact, the second time the foreperson was\nbrought out to the court, the foreperson explained what the issue was: some jurors believed the\ngovernment had not satisfied all of the elements required under Count 1. We cannot see how a\nsupplemental instruction regarding the legal definition of conspiracy would have aided the jury\nat this point, as it appears that the issue presented to the court concerned what to do when jurors\ndo not budge from their differing opinions.\n\n Thus, the trial judge’s decision to read the Allen charge was more appropriately tailored\nto the jury’s issue, because through the Allen charge, the judge urged the jury to reevaluate the\nevidence presented for Count 1. The judge stated, “You have advised me that you believe you\nare unable to reach a verdict and have asked what . . . can be done. This is an instruction . . . .\n[T]his is how I’m going to answer your question.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 9, R. 78, Page ID # 353.) The\njudge then proceeded to read the Allen charge. In this way, the judge appropriately provided a\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 27\n\n\nsupplemental instruction “to clear up uncertainties which the jury brings to the court’s attention.”\nGiacalone, 588 F.2d at 1166.\n\n We therefore hold that Daneshvar waived any objection to the district court’s response to\nthe jury’s inquiry, but even if he had preserved the issue, the district court’s actions upon\nreceiving the jury question were not in error.\n\n D. Sentencing Issues\n\n i. Acceptance of Guilt\n\n Daneshvar also argues that the district court considered an impermissible factor\nimplicating Daneshvar’s constitutional right when the court sentenced him. Specifically,\nDaneshvar argues that he was punished for deciding to go to trial, in violation of his Sixth\nAmendment right to have a jury trial. We disagree.\n\n It is true that at sentencing, the district judge stated that “[t]here was a trial,” and “[i]t\nreduces rather significantly the lower level of the variance because by going to trial the Court is\nsatisfied that he does not acknowledge the fact that he was guilty, does not accept responsibility\nfor his wrongdoing.” (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 107, Page ID # 583.) However, after there was\nsome discussion during which the judge confirmed that he had reviewed Daneshvar’s\nsupplemental sentencing memorandum, the judge explained:\n\n [N]owhere has there been an explanation for why the doctor went to trial.\n Nowhere has there been an explanation for why he put the government to the\n expense and difficulty of establishing his guilt by a jury. Now, that’s his\n constitutional right, and I’m not denigrating it, but I have not seen anything where\n the doctor—and it’s too late now—says I made a mistake, I was wrong, I should\n be punished. Nowhere have I seen that.\n\n(Id. at Page ID # 588). Daneshvar’s counsel did not object to this statement by the court.\n\n The government argues that Daneshvar forfeited his sentencing objection because his\ncounsel did not raise it below. But, the failure of Daneshvar’s counsel to object in the district\ncourt does not forfeit his right to appeal the issue: as the government concedes, the sentencing\ndecision is reviewable for plain error. See United States v. Cabrera, 811 F.3d 801, 808 (6th Cir.\n2016); United States v. Davis, 751 F.3d 769, 773 (6th Cir. 2014); United States v. Vonner, 516\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 28\n\n\nF.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). As we explain below, we find that the court did not\nplainly err when considering Daneshvar’s lack of remorse and responsibility.\n\n Regardless of whether Daneshvar’s sentencing challenge “is categorized as being\nprocedural, substantive, or a combination of the two, it is clear that a sentence based on an\nimproper factor fails to achieve the purposes of § 3553(a) and may be unreasonable.” Cabrera,\n811 F.3d at 809 (cleaned up). However, unlike the district court’s impermissible reliance upon\nthe defendant’s decision not to testify at trial in Cabrera, Daneshvar’s refusal to accept\nresponsibility was a permissible basis for the district court’s decision not to impose a lesser\nsentence. See In re Cook, 551 F.3d 542, 551 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that it is “well established\nthat a defendant’s remorse—or lack thereof—is an appropriate consideration in meting out\npunishment.”). The transcript of Daneshvar’s sentencing in this case is clear: while the district\njudge noted Daneshvar’s decision to go trial, the judge also stated, “that’s [Daneshvar’s]\nconstitutional right, and I’m not denigrating it.” (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 107, Page ID # 588.)\nThe judge explained that the real issue was that he “ha[d] not seen anything where the doctor . . .\nsays I made a mistake, I was wrong, I should be punished. Nowhere have I seen that.” (Id.)\n\n The district court’s statements here were markedly different than those in Cabrera, where\nthe sentencing judge recognized that “everybody has the constitutional right to go to trial,” but\nalso found that the defendant “never put [himself] on the record . . . at the trial.” 811 F.3d at\n807. The Cabrera sentencing judge further stated, “I have to tell you, from my standpoint . . . I\nview that as an incredibly cynical attempt to game the whole system here[,]” and that the\ndefendant “conjured up” a “fantastical story,” “evinc[ing] a total disrespect for the law.” Id.\nHere, by contrast, the district court did not rely upon Daneshvar’s decision to go to trial as\nevidencing a malicious intent towards the criminal justice system or resulting in disrespect for\nthe law. Instead, the district judge explained that his primary concern was Daneshvar’s\nacceptance of guilt.\n\n Daneshvar’s argument is similar to that raised by the defendant in Mitchell. In that case,\n“[a] significant aspect of [the defendant’s] argument is that he was not involved in the . . .\nscheme” and thus, the defendant argued “that he cannot take responsibility for something that he\ndid not do.” 681 F.3d at 884. Similarly, Daneshvar argued that he was not fully aware of the\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 29\n\n\nscheme, nor was he an essential part of it. Daneshvar’s counsel spent much of the trial\ndemonstrating that Daneshvar was less culpable and less involved in the conspiracy than other\nmembers.\n\n As we held in Mitchell, it is relevant that the jury found Daneshvar had participated in the\nconspiracy, which is a permissible fact for a district court’s 3553(a) analysis. “[T]he district\ncourt found that [Daneshvar’s] continued efforts to deny his involvement demonstrated a failure\nto take responsibility for his crime and a lack of remorse for the harm he had caused. The judge\ncould have reasonably concluded that [Daneshvar]’s dishonesty regarding important pieces of\nevidence indicated that he had not fully accepted responsibility for his participation in the\nconspiracy.” Id. (cleaned up) (citing United States v. Sutton, 387 F. App’x 595, 607 (6th Cir.\n2010)).\n\n “Accordingly, ‘it was not [Daneshvar]’s exercise of his right to [a jury trial], but rather,\nthat he did not accept responsibility for his crime, that the district court took into account in\nconsidering the § 3553(a) factors. This was not error.’” Id. (citing United States v. Delano, 411\nF. App’x 795, 799 (6th Cir. 2011)). In fact, the district court clarified that it recognized\nDaneshvar’s right to go to trial, and this was not a basis upon which to penalize or “denegrat[e]”\nhim. (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 107, Page ID # 588.) Rather, Daneshvar’s “failure to take\nresponsibility and [his] lack of remorse were two facts that the court considered in weighing the\nvarious § 3553(a) factors that it found to be most relevant to the case at hand. This was not\nunreasonable,” nor do we find it to be plainly erroneous. Mitchell, 681 F.3d at 885.\n\n ii. Minor Role Reduction\n\n Daneshvar argues that the court also erred when it denied his request for a two-level\nreduction under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3B1.2 based on his\nminor role in the conspiracy.\n\n The defendant bears the burden of proving a mitigating role by a preponderance of the\nevidence. See United States v. Roberts, 223 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2000). “Generally, this\nCourt reviews a district court’s legal conclusions regarding the Sentencing Guidelines de novo\nand its factual findings for clear error, though certain exceptions apply.” United States v.\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 30\n\n\nWilliams, 420 F. App’x 517, 518 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\nWe have explained that “[t]he ‘minor participant’ reduction is available only to a party who is\n‘less culpable than most other participants’ and ‘substantially less culpable than the average\nparticipant.’” United States v. Lloyd, 10 F.3d 1197, 1220 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting U.S.S.G\n§ 3B1.2, cmt. n.3). “Whether a defendant is entitled to a downward offense-level adjustment\nunder U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 depends heavily on factual determinations by the district court, which\nthis court reviews for clear error.” United States v. Auston, 355 F. App’x 919, 925 (6th Cir.\n2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\n\n The issue arises from the district’s failure to make any factual determinations on the\nrecord. During Daneshvar’s sentencing, defense counsel asked the court to rule on his objection\nto the Presentence Report in which he asked for a two-point reduction for Daneshvar’s purported\nminor role in the conspiracy. (Sentencing Hr’g Trans., R. 107, Page ID # 579–80, 582.) The\ndistrict judge stated that Daneshvar “will not be given an adjustment for [a] minor role. He was\na major player.” (Id. at Page ID # 582.) The court offered no other analysis, and defense\ncounsel did not object.\n\n It is true that typically, when a defendant challenges a district court’s denial of his request\nfor a role reduction to his sentence, we have found that the district court did not abuse its\ndiscretion or commit clear error if the district court provided an explanation for why it denied the\ndefendant’s request. But here, we are faced with the unique situation in which a district court\nhas made no factual findings or elaborated upon its rationale, although the sentencing judge was\nthe same judge who presided over the trial and thus, presumably had some insight into\nDaneshvar’s role. We adopt here the rationale of the Ninth Circuit, holding that “a district court\nneed not tick off sentencing factors to show that it considered them,” but a court cannot, for\ninstance, “adopt[] the government’s argument with little elaboration.” United States v. Diaz,\n884 F.3d 911, 914–15, 918 (9th Cir. 2018). In the instant case, we find that the district court\nerred in denying the defendant’s role reduction request without elaboration on the record as to\nwhy the court found Daneshvar to be a “major player.”\n\n Is this error harmless? “Under the harmless error test, a remand for an error\nat sentencing is required unless we are certain that any such error was harmless—i.e. any such\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 31\n\n\nerror ‘did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed.’” United States v.\nHazelwood, 398 F.3d 792, 801 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193,\n203 (1992)).\n\n In determining whether Daneshvar was “less culpable than most other participants”\nand/or “substantially less culpable than the average participant,” we turn to the U.S.S.G. advisory\ncommittee notes to § 3B1.2, which provide a non-exhaustive list of factors for a court’s\nconsideration:\n\n (i) The degree to which the defendant understood the scope and structure of\n the criminal activity;\n (ii) The degree to which the defendant participated in planning or organizing\n the criminal activity;\n (iii) The degree to which the defendant exercised decision-making authority or\n influenced the exercise of decision-making authority;\n (iv) The nature and extent of the defendant’s participation in the commission\n of the criminal activity, including the acts the defendant performed and the\n responsibility and discretion the defendant had in performing those acts;\n (v) The degree to which the defendant stood to benefit from the criminal\n activity.\n\nU.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C).\n\n There was evidence that Daneshvar significantly benefitted from the criminal activity:\nalthough he was with Mobile Doctors for approximately one year, he was paid the most of all of\nthe physicians employed by the company, receiving over $200,000 in salary payments plus a\n$15,000 bonus. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C)(v). Daneshvar also had the authority to certify that patients\nwere homebound, which he did even with the knowledge that many of his patients were not\nhomebound; he signed off on routing slips including at least three diagnoses for each patient,\neven when the patient did not suffer from the diagnoses; and at times, Daneshvar personally\nauthorized Mobile Doctors to bill Medicare for the two highest billing codes for patients from\nwhom the codes did not apply. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C)(iii) (iv). Although Daneshvar was not\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 32\n\n\ninvolved in the planning or organization of Mobile Doctors, nor was he aware of every part of\nthe scheme, he understood how Mobile Doctors generated money from fraudulently billing\nMedicare because he received a pay chart detailing the amount Mobile Doctors paid to each\nphysician per billed Medicare code. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C)(i) and (ii).\n\n For these reasons, we find that although the district court erred in its analysis, the error\nwas harmless because the evidence plainly demonstrated that Daneshvar was not a minor\nparticipant in the conspiracy.\n\n iii. Calculation of Guidelines Range\n\n Daneshvar argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district\ncourt did not calculate the appropriate sentencing Guidelines range before pronouncing the\nsentence.\n\n The district court began the sentencing by stating Daneshvar’s offense level, criminal\nhistory score, and the United States Probation Office’s recommendation of a sentencing range of\n63 to 78 months. (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 107, Page ID # 579.) Next, the court stated that,\nbased upon the parties’ sentencing memoranda, it “intends to vary the sentence from the\nrecommendation and the guidelines.” (Id.) Thus, the court asked whether, “[i]n light of the fact\nthat the Court intends to grant a variance that will be rather substantial,” was it “necessary to\nresolve” outstanding objections. (Id.) Defense counsel responded that although he “would say\nsay no,” it was not necessary to resolve the objections, counsel was under the impression that our\ncircuit required resolution of outstanding objections and an articulation of the Guidelines range\nduring sentencing. (Id. at Page ID # 579–80.) The court accepted counsel’s request and then\nwent through each of the outstanding objections.\n\n First, the court explained that as to the objection concerning the “loss amount,” it found\n“the restitution amount as a compromise between what the defendant says and what the\ngovernment says” because “there hasn’t been an independent audit presented to the Court\nestablishing the loss by the Government.” (Id. at Page ID # 581.) The second objection dealt\nwith the “abuse of trust” enhancement in the Sentencing Guidelines. Defense counsel argued\nagainst application of the enhancement, and the court agreed. The third and final objection\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 33\n\n\nconcerned Daneshvar’s role in the offense, and, as detailed earlier, the court rejected\nDaneshvar’s request for a role reduction.\n\n The court next moved into consideration of Daneshvar’s sentence. As we discussed\nearlier, the court explained it did not find that Daneshvar had shown remorse or accepted\nresponsibility for his actions. The court also inquired about the sentences of Daneshvar’s co-\nconspirators, as well as particular similarities and differences between the cases, to avoid\nsentencing disparity.\n\n The court then asked if the parties wished to address the court, and a lengthy discussion\nensued. After hearing arguments from both parties, the court pronounced the sentence.\n\n “A district court commits procedural error by ‘failing to calculate (or improperly\ncalculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the\n§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately\nexplain the chosen sentence.’” United States v. Fowler, 819 F.3d 298, 304 (6th Cir. 2016)\n(citation omitted). In United States v. Blackie, 548 F.3d 395, 401, 403 (6th Cir. 2008), the court\ndetermined that it could not “meaningfully review [the defendant’s] sentence” because the\ndistrict court had not acknowledged the Guidelines range, failed to give specific reasons for its\nvariance, and failed to clarify whether it had rejected various Guidelines enhancements. We\nhave held that this “combination warrant[ed] reversal.” United States v. Turner, 536 F. App’x\n614, 620 (6th Cir. 2013).\n\n Here, the district court began by acknowledging the recommended Guidelines sentencing\nrange, including Daneshvar’s criminal history score and total offense level that led to this range.\nAt no point did the court indicate that it considered the Guidelines range as mandatory; in fact,\nthe court announced that it would be varying from the Guidelines range. Next, the court\nconsidered all of the outstanding objections and resolved them. Finally, the court provided\nspecific reasons both for and against variance, including: (1) Daneshvar’s lack of acceptance of\nresponsibility, (2) sentencing disparities in comparison to Daneshvar’s co-conspirators and,\n(3) sentencing disparities in comparison to other physicians who were charged under the same\nstatute. Only then did the court pronounce the sentence. Pursuant to our circuit’s case law, the\n\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 34\n\n\nsentence was procedurally reasonable, and the district court did not err.9 See also United States\nv. Aleo, 681 F.3d 290, 299 (6th Cir. 2012) (finding no error when the sentencing judge did not\nre-calculate the Guidelines range after the defendant raised an objection to his sentencing\nenhancement because the district court properly resolved the objection to the enhancement).\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n Medicare fraud has long plagued the American healthcare system. Fraud and systematic\nupcoding are estimated at roughly 10 percent of Medicare’s costs every year. The taxes spent on\nprosecution of Medicare fraud add even more to the program’s costs. But, the expense and\ndifficulty of trying a Medicare fraud case, or indeed, any criminal case in which the defendant\nchooses to go to trial, are part of the worthwhile price we pay as a people who have the\nconstitutional right of trial by jury. Daneshvar was able to exercise this right and his sentence\ndoes not reflect that he was unfairly penalized in any way.\n\n For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM both the district court’s rulings at trial and\nDaneshvar’s sentence.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n We also note that after the court announced the sentence, the government requested to put into the record\nthe Guidelines calculation. The government stated that Daneshvar’s offense level was 20 (from a base offense level\nof 6, plus a 14-point enhancement for the loss amount, and the court did not accept any other enhancements). The\ncourt accepted this calculation, as did defense counsel, who also stated that he believed this resulted in a Guidelines\nrange of 37 to 46 months. Thus, the appropriate Guidelines calculation was placed in the record for our review.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Gerald Daneshvar\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-30\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0109p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-1101\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n GERALD DANESHVAR, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:15-cr-20362-1—Avern Cohn, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: April 29, 2019*\\n\\n Before: SILER, COOK, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Elizabeth L. Jacobs, Steven Fishman, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Andrew\\nGoetz, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. In the old days, every doctor made house calls to treat\\npatients. In more recent days, Dr. Gerald Daneshvar made house calls as part of a conspiracy to\\ncommit Medicare fraud.\\n\\n\\n\\n *This decision was originally filed as an unpublished opinion on April 29, 2019. The court has now\\ndesignated the opinion for publication.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 2\\n\\n\\n Daneshvar’s conspiracy lasted from 2012 to approximately 2013, during his time at a\\ncompany called Mobile Doctors. Ultimately, Daneshvar was charged with one count of a\\nconspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and two counts of healthcare fraud. A jury convicted\\nDaneshvar on the conspiracy count but found him not guilty of the other two counts. Daneshvar\\nwas sentenced to 24 months in prison. This appeal followed.\\n\\n The record demonstrates that Daneshvar’s trial was fair and that none of the district\\ncourt’s rulings during that proceeding should be reversed. Furthermore, we find no reversible\\nerror with his sentencing. We therefore AFFIRM.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n A. Medicare\\n\\n Medicare is a taxpayer-funded healthcare benefit program for persons who are 65 and\\nolder and for those under 65 with disabilities. Typically, a Medicare beneficiary visits a doctor’s\\noffice and Medicare reimburses the doctor for the provided service. Medicare also pays for\\ndoctors’ home visits in certain circumstances; however, house calls cost Medicare more money\\nthan treatment in a doctor’s office. Thus, to qualify for a home visit, a patient must be\\nhomebound, which occurs if the patient has a condition because of an illness or injury that\\nrestricts the patient’s ability to leave his or her place of residence without the aid of a supportive\\ndevice (e.g., cane, wheelchair, etc.). Also, the homebound patient actually must need the\\nphysician’s services.\\n\\n Given the voluminous number of beneficiaries and doctors, Medicare does not review\\neach home healthcare claim. Instead, Medicare relies upon doctors to accurately and honestly\\nbill the services they provide.\\n\\n B. Mobile Doctors\\n\\n In 2003, Dike Ajiri, a non-medical professional, opened Mobile Doctors, headquartered\\nin Chicago. It eventually expanded into seven states, including Michigan, and offered physician\\nservices to homebound Medicare beneficiaries. It hired doctors who agreed to assign their\\nMedicare billing rights to the company. After a home visit, each doctor would fill out a routing\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 3\\n\\n\\nslip describing the patient’s diagnoses using Medicare codes and certifying that a qualified home\\nvisit had occurred. The original of the routing slip stayed with the patient file, while the carbon\\ncopy went to Mobile Doctors, which sought payment from Medicare. Upon receipt of payment,\\nMobile Doctors would then pay the physician-employee a percentage of what the company\\nreceived from billing Medicare.\\n\\n The problem with this business model was that a large portion of Mobile Doctors’s\\npatients, in fact, did not qualify as being homebound. For instance, one doctor saw a supposedly\\nhomebound patient return home carrying groceries. Another patient rescheduled her\\nappointment because she was bowling. Nevertheless, Mobile Doctors’s physicians were\\nundeterred in characterizing such patients as homebound. In some instances, the doctors went\\neven further: they signed certifications for additional unneeded treatment from companies that\\nprovided at-home nursing or physical therapy services—companies that had referred the patients\\nto Mobile Doctors.\\n\\n For many patients, whether legitimately homebound or not, Mobile Doctors exaggerated\\nthe services they needed. For example, Mobile Doctors scheduled each patient for a home visit\\nevery 30 days, regardless of whether it was necessary. At most, only half of these patients\\nneeded the prescribed medical care.\\n\\n Mobile Doctors also engaged in upcoding, a fraudulent practice in which a healthcare\\nprovider submits a Medicare code for a more serious and more expensive diagnosis or procedure\\nthan the provider actually diagnosed or performed. Typically, at each home visit, a doctor met\\nwith a patient for 15 minutes at a minimum. Then, the doctor filled out the routing slip and,\\nregardless of how healthy the patient was, the doctor usually selected only the two most\\nexpensive Medicare reimbursement codes for home healthcare. These top two codes are\\nsupposed to be rare because Medicare limits them to complex visits lasting around an hour and\\nrequiring extensive examination and treatment. But, Mobile Doctors utilized these codes for\\nalmost every doctor’s visit, even visits as short as 10 minutes, which involved no tests or other\\nassessments.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 4\\n\\n\\n In order to justify the higher-reimbursement codes, Mobile Doctors instructed their\\nphysicians to list at least three diagnoses in the patient file; if the doctors did not list enough,\\nthen a staff member added more to meet the three-diagnoses minimum. Typical diagnoses used\\nto pad the claims were conditions that are common to persons over 50 years old: degenerative\\njoint disease, degenerative disk disease, high blood pressure, chronic pain, arthritis, and vitamin\\nD deficiency.\\n\\n Mobile Doctors only paid their physicians if they checked at least one of the top two\\nbilling codes on their routing slips. If the doctor billed for the higher of the top two codes, the\\ndoctor was paid more. And each doctor knew which codes paid the most. Every two weeks,\\nphysicians received a pay chart detailing the pay for all doctors at the company. The pay chart\\ndetailed the number of patients the physician visited per code, and how much Mobile Doctors\\npaid for that particular code.\\n\\n Mobile Doctors also encouraged their physicians to order diagnostic tests at specific\\nintervals and required baseline laboratory tests either once or twice per year, whether the patients\\nneeded the tests or not. This testing was authorized by a “standing order” that Mobile Doctors\\nrequired its physicians to sign even though Medicare prohibits testing ordered pursuant to\\nstanding orders. But Mobile Doctors thought otherwise: A doctor received bonuses from Mobile\\nDoctors based, in part, on how many tests were authorized under that doctor’s name pursuant to\\nthe standing order.\\n\\n C. Daneshvar’s Involvement with Mobile Doctors\\n\\n In September 2012, Dr. Gerald Daneshvar1 joined Mobile Doctors as a physician in its\\nMichigan office. He enrolled with Medicare, signed over his Medicare billing privileges to\\nMobile Doctors, and certified that he would abide by the rules set forth by Medicare and would\\nnot submit false claims.\\n\\n Daneshvar then began conducting home visits. In return, for submitting his routing slips,\\nhe received payment from Mobile Doctors along with a pay chart detailing the pay for each\\n\\n\\n 1\\n Daneshvar is referred to as “Dr. Gerry” in some of the trial exhibits and testimony.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 5\\n\\n\\nphysician per patient visit and Medicare code. But, Daneshvar later confessed that\\napproximately 30 percent of his patients that he certified as homebound were, in fact, not so.\\nAnd, according to one medical assistant, Robin Johnson, the fraud was even worse: Johnson\\ntestified that as many as half of Daneshvar’s patients were not homebound.\\n\\n In fact, every time medical assistant Danielle Mangan went with Daneshvar for home\\nvisits, there would be at least one patient who was not even at home when they arrived for the\\nvisit. Medical assistant Shannon Guyton had similar experiences with Daneshvar. She testified\\nthat many of the patients could drive or leave their homes without assistance. One of\\nDaneshvar’s patients also testified that she would regularly leave her house for daily activities\\nsuch as going to the store. Another patient cancelled her appointment because “[s]he was getting\\nready to leave,” and yet another was not home because he was “out with his friend.” (Trial Tr.\\nVol. 3, R. 110, Page ID # 951, 988–89.) Once, when medical assistant India Brimberry was\\nconducting home visits with Daneshvar, she saw a patient pull up in his car with bags, returning\\nfrom a store. Another patient, Kevin Barrett, biked regularly and played in his church band.\\nBarrett was honest: he told Daneshvar that he was not homebound. But such honesty did not\\ncarry over to Daneshvar’s Medicare certifications.\\n\\n In the patient charts, Daneshvar would pre-sign forms documenting the face-to-face\\nencounter, because Medicare rules state that a physician needs to make an in-person visit. Then,\\nthe clinical coordinator would fill out the diagnoses based on the routing slip or the exam notes\\nwithin the chart. The forms stated, “I certify that based on my findings the following services\\nare medically necessary home health services. Check all that apply.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 2, R. 109,\\nPage ID # 798.) The form continued, “Further, I certify that my clinical findings support that the\\npatient is homebound (i.e., absences from home require considerable and taxing effort and are\\nfor medical reasons or religion services or infrequently or of short duration . . . for other reasons\\n. . .).” (Id. at Page ID # 799.)\\n\\n Daneshvar not only fraudulently presented patients’ homebound status, but he also\\nreferred his patients to home healthcare agencies for other unneeded services. Daneshvar once\\nadmitted to medical assistant Guyton that one of his patients “didn’t need the [medical] service,\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 6\\n\\n\\nthey weren’t homebound.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 2, R. 109, Page ID # 930.) But, that isolated instance\\nof candor was not indicative of Daneshvar’s practice generally.\\n\\n As it turned out, Daneshvar would conduct the most home visits of any doctor employed\\nby Mobile Doctors. During his employment, he saw almost 4,000 patients, which worked out to\\nbe around 20 patients per day. In order to handle such a large volume, according to several\\nmedical assistants, Daneshvar evaluated the patient in approximately 10 to 15 minutes, shorter in\\nduration than evaluations by other physicians employed by Mobile Doctors. And Daneshvar\\nscheduled every patient for his speedy visit every 30 days, regardless of whether the patient\\nneeded the house call. At each visit, Daneshvar would typically write three to four diagnoses for\\nthe patient on a routing slip; sometimes the clinical coordinator added diagnoses based on the\\npatient chart. Daneshvar even acted as seemingly clairvoyant: he sometimes filled out the\\ndiagnoses before he even met with the patient.\\n\\n After completion of Daneshvar’s home visits, the routing slip was transmitted to the\\nChicago office, where the Mobile Doctors staff engaged in upcoding. (See Trial Tr. Vol. 3, R.\\n109, Page ID # 804 (“Upcode per Dr. Gerry.”).) Daneshvar admitted that “most of his patients\\nwere billed at a 4 or 5 level even though they qualified for 3 or lower.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 5, R. 112,\\nPage ID # 1363.) Sometimes, Daneshvar himself checked a box with the appropriate Medicare\\ncode on the routing slip. Other times, a medical assistant checked the box on Daneshvar’s behalf\\nand placed a copy of the routing slip in the patient file. Daneshvar never disapproved of the\\ncodes on routing slips, and his signature appeared on all of the routing slips for his home visits.\\nMobile Doctors would pay Daneshvar whenever he billed at least one of the top two codes.\\nMobile Doctors also billed Medicare for two or three times the number of hours Daneshvar\\nactually spent with the patient, based upon the routing slip.\\n\\n At one point, Daneshvar asked Dr. Stephen Mason, another Mobile Doctors employee,\\nhow he could make more money. Dr. Mason told him that “[w]e can’t bill any higher than we\\nare already billing. We are billing too high already.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 4, R. 111, Page ID # 1147.)\\nBut there was another way to boost the bottom line—giving injections of medications into the\\npatients’ musculoskeletal systems. Dr. Mason was getting paid extra for every injection. His\\nexperience led Daneshvar to do the same.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 7\\n\\n\\n Along with injections, early-and-often testing was a money-maker. Daneshvar signed the\\nMobile Doctors standing order for testing, which stated:\\n\\n Mobile Doctors Physician Standing Orders Preventative Care. Mobile Doctors\\n actively promotes preventative care and early intervention. A thorough history\\n and physical examination should be obtained on all of our patients along with\\n preventative care. Based on the billable diagnosis for (enter state) Medicare,\\n I give my clinical coordinator permission to order testing on my behalf when\\n warranted.\\n\\n(Trial Tr. Vol. 1, R. 108, Page ID # 712–13; Trial Exs., R. 135, Page ID # 1970.) Pursuant to the\\nstanding order, Mobile Doctors’s staff would sign Daneshvar’s name on testing order forms.\\nThe test results would come back, they would go to Daneshvar, and he would initial the results.\\nDaneshvar never objected when Mobile Doctors’s staff ordered tests on his behalf pursuant to his\\nstanding order.\\n\\n Ultimately, Daneshvar billed Medicare for almost $1.5 million in claims, was paid a\\nsalary of almost $250,000 from Mobile Doctors, and received the highest bonuses of all the\\ndoctors employed by the company. Mobile Doctors rewarded Daneshvar handsomely because\\nhe “does literally anything we ask,” and so “we need to keep him happy.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 4, R.\\n111, Page ID # 1225; Trial Tr. Vol. 5, R. 112, Page ID # 1372–76; Trial Exs., R. 135, Page ID #\\n1976–79.) In June of 2013, Mobile Doctors re-signed Daneshvar’s contract, agreeing to reward\\nhim with a $15,000 bonus. Mobile Doctors also agreed to pay Daneshvar an additional $4 per\\npatient, but only when he billed the two highest codes, which were “the actual levels that\\naffect[ed his] pay.” (Trial Exs., R. 135, Page ID # 1972.)\\n\\n D. Medicare Fraud Investigation\\n\\n Eventually, federal agents caught up with Mobile Doctors. In August 2013, agents\\nexecuted search warrants at all three Mobile Doctors offices, including the Michigan office\\nwhere Daneshvar worked. The same day, two agents interviewed Daneshvar at a coffee shop.\\nDaneshvar admitted that: (1) even though he certified his patients as homebound, approximately\\n30 percent of them were not; (2) he referred patients to home healthcare agencies, including\\nthose patients who were not homebound; (3) most of his patient visits lasted 15 to 20 minutes,\\nallowing him to see 20 patients per day; (4) most patients were billed at “4” and “5,” the two\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 8\\n\\n\\nhighest Medicare codes, and thus, most of his patients were misbilled because they should have\\nbeen billed at a “3” or lower; and (5) his salary from Mobile Doctors was tied to billing codes\\n“4” and “5.”\\n\\n E. The Trial\\n\\n A federal grand jury indicted Daneshvar on one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare\\nfraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and two counts of healthcare fraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1347. The\\ncase proceeded to a jury trial. On May 8, 2017, the jury convicted Daneshvar of Count 1, but\\nfound him not guilty of Counts 2 and 3. Daneshvar filed a motion for a new trial, and the district\\ncourt denied the motion. On January 18, 2018, the court sentenced Daneshvar to 24 months of\\nimprisonment followed by three years of supervised release and a restitution amount of\\n$900,000. Daneshvar timely appealed.\\n\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n\\n Daneshvar raises ten grounds for reversal premised on the following four areas of alleged\\nerror: (1) the district court abused its discretion in excluding certain evidence; (2) the judge\\nimproperly gave two Sixth Circuit criminal pattern jury instructions and one preliminary jury\\ninstruction; (3) the judge should have provided a supplemental instruction to the jury after the\\njury, during its deliberations, posed a question to the court; and (4) the district court abused its\\ndiscretion when sentencing Daneshvar. We address each category in turn.\\n\\n A. Evidentiary Issues\\n\\n We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, which occurred\\nif it made “errors of law or clear errors of factual determination.” United States v. Baker,\\n458 F.3d 513, 517 n.6 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However,\\n“[w]hen a party fails to object to evidence at the trial court, his contention on appeal will prevail\\nonly if the trial court's evidentiary decision was plainly erroneous, thus affecting his substantial\\nrights and resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 517. Here, as in Baker and Peak v.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 9\\n\\n\\nKubota Tractor Corp., 559 F. App’x 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2014), “[t]he decision as to the correct\\nstandard of review will not affect the outcome of this appeal.” Baker, 458 F.3d at 517.2\\n\\n Moreover, even if we were to find that the court incorrectly excluded the evidence, “this\\ndoes not automatically result in a new trial.” United States v. Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d 365, 378 (6th\\nCir. 2015). Exclusion of the evidence must have “materially affect[ed] the verdict.” United\\nStates v. English, 785 F.3d 1052, 1056 (6th Cir. 2015); Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d at 378 (“Non-\\nconstitutional errors are subject to Rule 52(a) harmless error analysis: the government must\\nshow by a preponderance of the evidence that the error did not materially affect the verdict.”\\n(emphasis in original)).\\n\\n i. Admission of the December 27, 2012, Email\\n\\n Daneshvar’s defense was that he was ignorant of the fraud at Mobile Doctors. In support,\\ndefense counsel moved to admit an email chain through Daneshvar’s testimony. The email,\\ndated December 27, 2012, was sent from Melissa Meredith (the branch manager for Mobile\\nDoctors at the Southfield, Michigan office) to Dike Ajiri (Mobile Doctors’s president) stating, in\\npart:\\n\\n [W]e don’t want [the doctors] asking too many questions about billing etc.\\n [L]et[’s] just keep them in the dark, we cover their liability, let us cover ourselves\\n and that’s the end of it! We do not brow beat them with mundane details and we\\n give creative control for the treatment of [patients] unless, it[‘s] something that\\n will harm the [patient] or us. I think we should operate with [standing orders for\\n tests] the same way. They are not stupid, they know we make money off of\\n tests[,] but they also know that it is helping the [patient], that’s why they agree to\\n it.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n Daneshvar argues that the abuse-of-discretion standard does not extend to the exclusion of\\ncrucial, relevant evidence establishing a valid defense. In support, Daneshvar cites to United States v.\\nRiley, 550 F.2d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 1977). Daneshvar misunderstands the holding in Riley. The Fifth\\nCircuit held that, “[a]lthough the trial judge is traditionally accorded a wide range of discretion in the\\nadmission of evidence, it is axiomatic that such discretion does not extend to the exclusion of crucial\\nrelevant evidence establishing a valid defense. Id. at 236 (citation omitted). In other words, the Fifth\\nCircuit held that a district court abuses its discretion if it excludes crucial relevant evidence establishing a\\nvalid defense—not that the abuse-of-discretion standard does not apply.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 10\\n\\n\\n Sometimes too much can be harmful. Where did I hear that before? Oh\\n yeah, it was you!\\n\\n(Trial Exs., R. 118, Page ID # 1700.)\\n\\n On appeal, Daneshvar argues that the district court erred in excluding the email on\\nrelevance and hearsay grounds. We agree with Daneshvar that the email was relevant, see Fed.\\nR. Evid. 401, but we disagree that it was admissible as Daneshvar argues under the business\\nrecord and residual hearsay exceptions, see Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), 807, and the opposing party\\nstatement hearsay exclusion, see Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).\\n\\n a. Relevance\\n\\n First, as to relevance, the district court appeared to indicate that because the government\\nhad already presented evidence demonstrating that Daneshvar knew of the fraudulent billing, the\\nemail exchange discussing keeping doctors in the dark about billing was irrelevant. In other\\nwords, the district judge treated the government’s evidence as conclusively establishing a fact,\\nnotwithstanding any contrary evidence. This ruling was in error. Daneshvar’s counsel sought to\\nintroduce the email to rebut the government’s evidence of the knowledge that the doctors,\\nincluding Daneshvar, had of Mobile Doctors’s billing practices. Therefore, the email had a\\ntendency to make a fact—the doctors’ apparent knowledge of Mobile Doctors’s billing\\npractices—“more or less probable.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. The jury should have been allowed to\\nconsider the email in light of the government’s proof, and then determine what weight to assign\\nto each piece of evidence.\\n\\n We need not resolve, however, whether the district court’s erroneous finding that the\\nemail was irrelevant materially affected the verdict because the district court properly excluded\\nthe email on another ground: hearsay. As explained below, none of the hearsay exceptions or\\nexclusion cited by Daneshvar apply.\\n\\n b. Records of a Regularly Conducted Business Activity\\n\\n Both before the district court and upon appeal, Daneshvar argued that the email is\\nadmissible as a business record. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), a business record\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 11\\n\\n\\nmust have been: (a) made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person\\nwith knowledge; (b) kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity; and (c) made\\nas part of a regular practice of the business. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Moreover, all of these\\nconditions must be shown by the testimony of a qualified witness. Id.\\n\\n An email is not a business record for purposes of the relevant hearsay exception simply\\nbecause it was sent between two employees in a company or because employees regularly\\nconduct business through emails; such evidence alone is insufficient to show that the email is a\\nrecord, made as “a regular practice” of the company, Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(C), and that “the\\nrecord was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business,” id. at 803(6)(B).\\n“[I]t would be insufficient to survive a hearsay challenge simply to say that since a business\\nkeeps and receives e-mails, then ergo all those e-mails are business records falling with the ambit\\nof Rule 803(6)(B).” United States v. Cone, 714 F.3d 197, 220 (4th Cir. 2013). If that were the\\ncase, then every single email sent within any company would fall within the exception. This\\nresult would obviate the entire purpose of the business records exception, which is designed for a\\nlimited category of records—namely those that are regularly produced as a part of a company’s\\nbusiness activities.\\n\\n Of course, an email can qualify as an admissible record of a regularly conducted business\\nactivity as long as the proponent satisfies the requirements of Rule 803(6). But, it was no abuse\\nof discretion for the district court to find that those requirements were not met here. We affirm\\nthe district court’s holding that the email “was not a business record [admissible under Rule\\n803(6)], but rather a form of conversation”—that is, a one-time discussion regarding what to tell\\ndoctors—as this holding was based on no clearly erroneous factual finding or erroneous\\ninterpretation of law. (Op. Denying Mot. for New Trial, R. 86, Page ID # 435.).3\\n\\n c. Residual Hearsay Exception\\n\\n We also find that the district court did not err when declining to admit the email pursuant\\nto the residual clause of the hearsay rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 807. One of the requirements\\n\\n\\n 3\\n Moreover, Daneshvar did not offer a qualified witness to testify concerning the requirements of the\\nbusiness record exception. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(D).\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 12\\n\\n\\nof Rule 807 is that the evidence being offered “is more probative on the point for which it is\\noffered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.” Fed.\\nR. Evid. 807(a)(3). At trial, Daneshvar repeatedly put forth evidence that the company’s doctors\\nwere not made aware of Mobile Doctors’s final billing processes. For instance, Dr. Mason\\ntestified that he was “in the dark” about Mobile Doctors’s billing. (Trial Tr. Vol. 4, R. 111, Page\\nID # 1197.) Physician-employee Dr. Leonard VanGelder likewise testified that he did not have\\nanything to do with actual billing, which was handled by the Chicago office. Daneshvar\\nsimilarly testified in his own defense.\\n\\n The testimony of these witnesses precludes reliance on the residual exception. That is,\\nDaneshvar has not demonstrated that the email is more probative than is the testimony for the\\nfact that the doctors did not know about Mobile Doctors’s billing practices. Daneshvar argues on\\nappeal that the email has more probative value because it was sent by a “neutral” source, rather\\nthan the physicians themselves. However, the jury learned of the actual email, as well as its\\ncontents, during the questioning of Dr. Mason when he was asked, “[W]ere you shown an email\\nfrom Melissa Meredith to Dike Ajiri saying precisely that, I’m not reading it verbatim, but we’re\\ndoing the best we can to keep the doctors in the dark about billing?” (Trial Tr. Vol. 4, R. 111,\\nPage ID # 1196–97.) Thus, Daneshvar’s point—that the company’s management was hiding its\\nbilling practices from the doctors—could have been, and in fact was, made through the witnesses\\nat trial. It was therefore no abuse of discretion for the district court to hold that the email was\\ninadmissible under Rule 807.4\\n\\n d. Co-Conspirator Exclusion\\n\\n For the first time on appeal, Daneshvar also argues that the email is not hearsay because\\nit was a statement made by his co-conspirators, and therefore excluded from the hearsay\\ndefinition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). Daneshvar misapplies this Rule,\\n\\n\\n 4\\n Even if the district court’s exclusion of the email had been in error, it would constitute harmless error. As\\nnoted, the substance of the email was already admitted, through Dr. Mason’s testimony, at trial. See generally\\nUnited States v. Schaeffer, 626 F. App’x 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that “even assuming that [a] letter was\\nadmissible as a statement against interest under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) or under the residual hearsay exception, Fed.\\nR. Evid. 807, the evidence against [the defendant] on the count to which [the] letter related was overwhelming and\\nthe letter offered only weak support to [the defendant’s] case”).\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 13\\n\\n\\nwhich states that “[t]he statement [must be] offered against an opposing party” and must have\\nbeen “made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Fed. R.\\nEvid. 801(d)(2), (d)(2)(E). Daneshvar incorrectly seeks to use his own co-conspirators’\\nstatements on his behalf, not against an opposing party. Moreover, even if Daneshvar were\\nsomehow using the statements against the government, the statements were not made by “[that]\\nparty’s coconspirator”—that is, the statements were not made by the government’s\\ncoconspirators. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Thus, the email does not fall within Rule\\n801(d)(2)(E) and there was no abuse of discretion to exclude it as hearsay by the district court.\\n\\n ii. Admission of Joel Trombley’s and Daneshvar’s Testimony\\n\\n Defense counsel attempted to elicit testimony from both Daneshvar and Joel Trombley\\nregarding Daneshvar’s work at a later employer, the American Health Care Network (AHCN).\\nTrombley was employed as a medical assistant by Mobile Doctors and then worked with\\nDaneshvar at AHCN. Defense counsel attempted to establish that after Daneshvar left Mobile\\nDoctors for AHCN, he became more involved in the billing process, began to scrutinize bills to\\nmake sure they were accurate, and “that once he learned, once he saw what happened he changed\\nhis ways.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 6, R. 113, Page ID # 1437.) The government objected on the grounds\\nof relevance, and the court sustained the objection. The court determined that “how [Daneshvar]\\nconducted himself at a subsequent place of employment is not relevant to the issue in this case”\\nbecause this “case involves what happened with Mobile Doctors.” (Id.)\\n\\n On appeal, Daneshvar argues that he offered the AHCN evidence as “reverse Rule 404(b)\\nevidence.” Daneshvar points out that our circuit has recognized that reverse 404(b) evidence is\\nwhen “the evidence of a prior act by another is offered as exculpatory evidence by the defendant,\\ninstead of being used by a prosecutor against a defendant.” United States v. Lucas, 357 F.3d\\n599, 605 (6th Cir. 2004). However, in Lucas, we held that “the Advisory Committee Notes\\nfollowing Rule 401 explain that rules such as Rule 404 and those that follow it are meant to\\nprohibit certain types of evidence that are otherwise clearly ‘relevant evidence.’” Id. Thus, at\\nthe outset, we must determine whether the evidence is relevant under Rule 401, and if so,\\nwhether it should nonetheless be excluded as improper propensity evidence pursuant to Rule\\n404(b).\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 14\\n\\n\\n We agree with the district court that evidence of Daneshvar’s conduct after he left Mobile\\nDoctors is not relevant, as the fraud and conspiracy at issue occurred only while Daneshvar was\\nat Mobile Doctors. Daneshvar’s post-Mobile Doctors evidence is not that of his potentially\\nexculpatory actions undertaken prior or during the time of the fraud, but rather, pertain to\\nactivities conducted after the fraud ended. Thus, even if Daneshvar employed legal billing\\npractices after his time at Mobile Doctors, that fact does not change or alter the evidence\\npresented regarding his actions while conspiring to commit fraud at Mobile Doctors.\\n\\n Moreover, we have held that “[f]or the same reason that prior ‘bad acts’ may not be used\\nto show a predisposition to commit crimes, prior ‘good acts’ generally may not be used to show a\\npredisposition not to commit crimes.” United States v. Dimora, 750 F.3d 619, 630 (6th Cir.\\n2014). Even considering the merits of Daneshvar’s argument that his post-Mobile Doctors\\nconduct tended to make his lack of intent more probable, which is an acceptable purpose for\\nadmission under Rule 404(b), the evidence of Daneshvar’s future billing practices does not\\nqualify as “reverse 404(b).” Daneshvar’s attention to billing after he left Mobile Doctors is not\\n“evidence of a prior act by another,” Lucas, 357 F.3d at 605 (emphasis added), but rather, is\\nevidence of his own future acts. See also United States v. Armstrong, 436 F. App’x 501, 503\\n(6th Cir. 2011) (“[E]vidence of a prior act by another is offered as exculpatory evidence by the\\ndefendant, instead of being used by a prosecutor against a defendant.” (emphasis added))\\n(citation omitted); United States v. Clark, 377 F. App’x 451, 458 (6th Cir. 2010) (same); United\\nStates v. Robinson, 272 F. App’x 421, 430 (6th Cir. 2007) (analyzing reverse 404(b) as\\n“evidence of prior acts of a third party offered by a defendant” (emphasis added)).\\n\\n Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of\\nDaneshvar’s billing conduct after he left Mobile Doctors.\\n\\n iii. Admission of the Summary Charts\\n\\n Daneshvar also argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it excluded\\ntwo proposed summary exhibits that Daneshvar sought to admit through his own testimony. We\\ndisagree.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 15\\n\\n\\n On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned the government case agent about two\\nexhibits admitted into evidence during the government’s case-in-chief. These exhibits compiled\\nthe Medicare data for Mobile Doctors and displayed each doctor-employee’s total Medicare\\nbillings and number of home visits. (Trial Exs., R. 135, Page ID # 1984–86, 1989–90.) The\\ncharts showed that Daneshvar billed over $1.4 million to Medicare, more than any other\\nphysician employed by Mobile Doctors, and that he visited the greatest number of patients, as\\ncompared to the other doctors. Defense counsel asked the government case agent to use both of\\nthe exhibits to calculate the average amount that Daneshvar had billed to Medicare per patient\\nand then compare it to the same calculation for the other physicians. This arithmetic yielded the\\naverage amount that each physician billed to Medicare per patient. The agent agreed that “by\\nlooking at the charts,” he “would say yes,” the average amount billed to Medicare per patient\\nvisit was higher for other doctors than for Daneshvar. (Trial Tr. Vol. 5, R. 112, Page ID # 1393.)\\n\\n The next day, defense counsel sought to introduce into evidence two summary exhibits\\nlisting the same calculation for each doctor and his or her average amount billed to Medicare per\\npatient. The government objected on relevance grounds, and defense counsel responded that in\\nlight of government making “a big point about how [Daneshvar’s] amount of money” billed to\\nMedicare was at least $1.4 million, the proposed charts show that Dr. Guzman “had a lot higher\\nratio of how much money was billed per patient visit than Dr. Daneshvar.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 6, R.\\n113, Page ID # 1480–81.) Thus, the charts “show[] that Dr. Daneshvar, while he had a very\\nlarge number of visits, the amount of money billed for his visits put him about fifth or sixth” as\\ncompared to the other physician’s billings per patient visit. (Id.)\\n\\n The district judge remarked that Dr. Guzman was not on trial and held that “[t]he fact that\\nsome other doctor billed even more per visit is irrelevant to what this doctor did.” (Id. at Page\\nID # 1483.) After some back-and-forth, defense counsel again attempted to explain the\\nrelevance of the summary exhibits, stating, “The government brings in summary exhibits and\\nthey argue from them through their witness about what a big crook he is, and then I’m prohibited\\nfrom showing that with the same numbers . . . Dr. Daneshvar is fifth of the group . . . .” (Id. at\\nPage ID # 1484.) The court responded that “according to your theory, if they are all crooks, he\\n[Daneshvar] rated number five as a crook. Somebody was more crooked than he was.” (Id.)\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 16\\n\\n\\nDefense counsel responded that this was not his theory and contended, “It’s just to contradict\\n[the government’s] chart. I mean why is their chart admissible to show he got all of this money,\\nand I can’t explain the difference . . . ?” (Id.) The court nonetheless denied Daneshvar’s request\\non relevance grounds and prohibited defense counsel from asking any more questions about the\\ncalculation. (Id. at 1486.)\\n\\n On appeal, Daneshvar argues that the summary charts were relevant and admissible\\npursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, which allows for the use of a summary, chart, or\\ncalculation. Daneshvar cites to United States v. Bray, 139 F.3d 1104, 1109 (6th Cir. 1998)\\n(internal quotation marks and citations omitted) for the proposition that “the proponent of the\\nsummary must also have made the documents available” to the other side so the opposing party\\ncan “attack the authenticity or accuracy of a chart, summary, or calculation, with an opportunity\\nto prepare for cross-examination, or to offer exhibits of its own as rebuttal evidence, which\\nwould serve to counteract the impression made on the jury by the proponent’s witness.” Finally,\\nDaneshvar argues that the court denied him his constitutional right to present evidence on his\\nown behalf by prohibiting him from asking questions about the arithmetic calculation.\\n\\n Even if we were to agree with Daneshvar that the summary charts and the corresponding\\ncalculations were relevant and admissible, thus finding that the district court erred, such error\\nwas harmless because Daneshvar elicited the same information for the jury’s benefit earlier in\\nthe trial. As detailed earlier, Daneshvar elicited information concerning how much he billed to\\nMedicare on average per patient visit, as compared to the other physicians, during his counsel’s\\ncross-examination of the government’s case agent. Also, at closing argument, Daneshvar’s\\ncounsel argued that the government exhibits did not\\n\\n make an attempt to show how much money was billed by Mobile Doctors per\\n patient visit. That’s what they didn’t do. So you—because I was able to do it\\n with my Mumford High School arithmetic, you can do it yourself. You can take\\n those numbers. You don’t need to make it exact, and you can divide how many\\n visits into how much billing was generated.\\n\\n(Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1774.) Thus, the jury was presented with the very facts that\\nDaneshvar’s counsel wanted to convey with his proposed exhibits.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 17\\n\\n\\n Furthermore, “the evidence against [Daneshvar] on the count to which [the summary\\ncharts] related was overwhelming and [the summary charts] offered only weak support to\\n[Daneshvar’s] case.” Schaeffer, 626 F. App’x at 609. Even if Daneshvar was not the top\\nfraudulent biller to Medicare per patient visit, the evidence demonstrates that he nevertheless\\nbilled fraudulently to Medicare. That he billed less per patient than the other doctors is only\\n“weak support” for his argument. Id.\\n\\n Consequently, we find that any alleged error regarding the district court’s ruling on the\\ndefense’s proposed summary charts constitutes harmless error.\\n\\n B. Jury Instructions\\n\\n For the first time on appeal, Daneshvar argues that it was error for the trial judge to give\\ncertain jury instructions; in particular, he takes issue with three instructions. Because Daneshvar\\n“did not object to the district court’s jury instructions, we review for plain error.” United States\\nv. Carmago-Antonio, 541 F. App’x 678, 679 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v.\\nNewsom, 452 F.3d 593, 605 (6th Cir. 2006)); Fed. R. Crim. P. 30(d). “In the context of\\nchallenges to jury instructions, plain error requires a finding that, taken as a whole, the jury\\ninstructions were so clearly erroneous as to likely produce a grave miscarriage of justice.”\\nUnited States v. Semrau, 693 F.3d 510, 528 (6th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation\\nomitted).\\n\\n i. Deliberate-Ignorance Jury Instruction\\n\\n The district judge read the following instruction to the jury:\\n\\n Now I want to explain something about proving a defendant’s knowledge. No\\n one can avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring the obvious. If\\n you are convinced that the defendant deliberately ignored a high probability that\\n Mobile Doctors was engaged in a fraud, you may find that he knew that Mobile\\n Doctors was engaged in a fraud.\\n\\n But to find this you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the\\n defendant was aware of a high probability that Mobile Doctors was engaged in\\n fraud and that defendant deliberately closed his eyes to what was obvious.\\n Carelessness or negligence or foolishness on his part is not the same as\\n knowledge and is not enough to convict. This, of course, is all for you to decide.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 18\\n\\n\\n(Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1815–16.)\\n\\n Daneshvar concedes that this instruction mirrors the Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction\\n2.09, with no modification, which is used to define the “knowledge” requirement for the charged\\noffenses.5 However, he argues that our circuit has held “that the decision to give this instruction\\nis to be approached with significant prudence and caution. More specifically, we have noted that\\nthe instruction should not be given routinely because of the risk of a conviction based on mere\\nnegligence, carelessness or ignorance.” United States v. Mitchell, 681 F.3d 867, 876 (6th Cir.\\n2012) (citing Mari, 47 F.3d at 785). We have said that the instruction should “be used\\nsparingly.” Geisen, 612 F.3d at 486. Daneshvar argues that this is an instance in which the\\ninstruction should not have been given because the government did not provide evidence that he\\ndeliberately turned a blind eye to Mobile Doctors’s activities.\\n\\n “This is not, of course, our first encounter with this instruction.” Mitchell, 681 F.3d at\\n876. “What [Daneshvar] challenges . . . is the propriety, in light of the evidence presented at\\ntrial, of giving the instruction at all. He contends that the jury could not have within reason\\nfound, based on the evidence, that he was deliberately ignorant of the existence of the [Medicare\\nfraud].” Mari, 47 F.3d at 785. We resolved the issue raised by Daneshvar in Mari, and we are\\nbound by that decision to hold that the district court did not commit plain error in giving the\\ninstruction. See id at 785–86 (explaining rationale for the instruction and circumstances in\\nwhich, even if the instruction was given mistakenly, “giving the Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury\\nInstruction on deliberate ignorance was harmless as a matter of law”).\\n\\n ii. Conspiracy Jury Instruction\\n\\n The district court also read the following jury instruction to the jury:\\n\\n If you are convinced there was a criminal agreement, then you must decide\\n whether the government has proved that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily\\n joined that agreement. To convict the defendant, the government must prove that\\n he knew the conspiracy’s main purpose, that he voluntarily joined it intending to\\n help or achieve its goals.\\n 5\\n We have repeatedly held that this instruction is an accurate statement of the law. See, e.g., United States\\nv. Geisen, 612 F.3d 471, 486 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Beaty, 245 F.3d 617, 622 (6th Cir. 2001); United\\nStates v. Mari, 47 F.3d 782, 785 (6th Cir. 1995).\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 19\\n\\n\\n This does not require proof that the defendant knew everything about the\\n conspiracy or everyone else involved or that he was a member of it from the very\\n beginning. Nor does it require proof that the defendant played a major role in the\\n conspiracy or that his connection to it was substantial. A slight role or connection\\n may be enough.\\n\\n(Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1817–18.)\\n\\n This instruction is identical to the Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 3.03. Daneshvar\\nargues that we “should take this opportunity to disavow the jury instruction” (Appellant Br. at\\n40), and in doing so, he makes the same argument as in United States v. Mahbub, 818 F.3d 213,\\n230 (6th Cir. 2016), where the defendant contended that the jury instruction lowers the burden of\\nproof. In Mahbub, we held:\\n\\n [The defendant’s] contention lacks merit. The instruction states, and the district\\n court read, “[a] slight role or connection may be enough” to link a defendant to a\\n conspiracy, which is an accurate legal proposition. See United States v. Price,\\n 258 F.3d 539, 544 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The connection of the defendant to the\\n conspiracy need only be slight, if there is sufficient evidence to establish that\\n connection beyond a reasonable doubt.”); United States v. Betancourt, 838 F.2d\\n 168, 174 (6th Cir. 1988) (“The existence of a connection to the conspiracy must\\n be shown beyond a reasonable doubt, but the importance of the connection need\\n not be great.”). To the extent that the disputed language lowers the burden of\\n proof to support a conviction, we note that “no single provision of the jury\\n instruction can be read in isolation;” instead, “the charge must be considered as a\\n whole.” United States v. Horton, 847 F.2d 313, 322 (6th Cir. 1988).\\n\\nId. We determined that “the district court made it abundantly clear that the reasonable-doubt\\nstandard applied in determining whether [the defendant] should be found guilty of criminal\\nconspiracy” by using the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the jury instructions. Id.\\n\\n Daneshvar argues that unlike in Mahbub, “the rest of the jury instructions in this case\\ncombined to relieve the government of its high standard of proof and replace it with speculation\\nand probabilities.” (Appellant Br. at 39.) We do not find that Daneshvar’s argument has merit,\\nlet alone establishes that the district court committed plain error. As in Mahbub, the district\\ncourt here repeatedly used the reasonable-doubt standard. Before beginning the conspiracy\\nsection, the court stated: “A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership. For you to find the\\ndefendant guilty of the conspiracy charge, the government must prove each and every one of the\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 20\\n\\n\\nfollowing elements beyond a reasonable doubt . . . .” (Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1816.)\\nAgain, the court stated, “You must be convinced that the government has proved all of these\\nelements beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the conspiracy\\ncharge.” (Id. at Page ID # 1817.)\\n\\n Although Daneshvar points out that other circuits do not use the phrase “slight evidence,”\\nour circuit continues to do so, so long as, considering the jury instructions as a whole, the\\ninstructions do not lower the burden of proof. See Mahbub, 818 F.3d at 230; see also United\\nStates v. Price, 258 F.3d 539, 544 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The connection of the defendant to the\\nconspiracy need only be slight, if there is sufficient evidence to establish that connection beyond\\na reasonable doubt.”). Upon reviewing the jury instructions as a whole, including the district\\ncourt’s repeated use of the reasonable-doubt standard, we find that the instructions did not lower\\nthe burden of proof.6 Thus, we find no error in the use of the conspiracy jury instruction.\\n\\n iii. Presumption of Innocence Preliminary Jury Instruction\\n\\n At the start of the trial, the district court provided the parties with a set of preliminary\\njury instructions the court intended to use, and neither side objected. One of these instructions\\nread:\\n\\n Now, there are some basic rules about a criminal case you must keep in mind.\\n First, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The indictment\\n against a defendant is only an accusation, nothing more. It’s not proof of guilt or\\n anything else. The defendant, therefore, starts out the case with a clean slate.\\n\\n(Trial Tr. Vol I, R. 108, Page ID # 612–13.)7\\n\\n\\n\\n 6\\n Daneshvar argues that the deliberate-indifference jury instruction, combined with the conspiracy jury\\ninstruction that was given, lowers the burden of proof. But other than arguing, as we discussed above, that the\\ngovernment failed to present evidence that he acted with deliberate indifference, Daneshvar presents no other\\nargument or evidence that the deliberate-indifference jury instruction can lower the burden of proof. We find that\\nthis sort of conclusory statement is, “bereft of factual and legal support, [thus, Daneshvar] has not properly\\ndeveloped this argument.” Gafurova v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 321, 328 (6th Cir. 2018). Similarly, Daneshvar, in one\\nsentence of his brief, argues that the use of the words “natural and probable” by the district court in the jury\\ninstructions resulted in lowering the burden of proof. Again, he presents no other argument or authority for support.\\nThus, we hold that Daneshvar has forfeited these arguments.\\n 7\\n The instructions are copied from those in the model preliminary jury instructions for criminal trials\\npublished in the Benchbook for federal district judges. See Federal Judicial Center, Benchbook for U.S. District\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 21\\n\\n\\n Daneshvar argues that this instruction does not mirror that found in the Sixth Circuit\\nPattern Criminal Jury Instruction 1.03, which states that the “presumption of innocence stays\\nwith [the defendant] unless the government presents evidence here in court that overcomes the\\npresumption.” In particular, Daneshvar takes issue with the district court’s use of the word\\n“until,” in comparison to the pattern jury instruction’s use of the word “unless.”\\n\\n Daneshvar has not established plain error from the district court’s preliminary\\ninstructions. The Supreme Court has stated that the use of the word “until” in the following\\ninstruction is “quite correct”:\\n\\n The defendant is presumed to be innocent of all the charges against him until he\\n is proven guilty by the evidence submitted to you. This presumption remains with\\n the defendant until such time, in the progress of the case, that you are satisfied of\\n the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt . . . . Every man is presumed to be innocent\\n until he is proved guilty, and this legal presumption of innocence is to be regarded\\n by the jury in this case as matter of evidence, to the benefit of which the party is\\n entitled.\\n\\nAgnew v. United States, 165 U.S. 36, 51 (1897) (emphasis added).\\n\\n As in Agnew, in which the jury instructions included phrases such as “guilt beyond a\\nreasonable doubt” and “presum[ption] of innocence,” the context of the instructions in the instant\\ncase demonstrates that Daneshvar was presumed innocent as the trial began. The district court\\nstated that Daneshvar “starts out the case with a clean slate,” that he had “no burden to prove\\ninnocence,” and that “the government must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable\\ndoubt.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 1, R. 108, Page ID # 613.) Thus, the instruction, “especially when\\nconsidered in its context,” was not improper. United States v. Hynes, 467 F.3d 951, 956–57 (6th\\nCir. 2006) (“But even if the isolated statement could be interpreted as improper, the district court\\navoided any prejudice to [the defendant] by twice instructing the jury on the presumption of\\ninnocence.”).\\n\\n We also note, as Daneshvar concedes, that the district court told the jury there would be\\n“further instructions” later, and he used the “unless” phrase at the end of the trial, when he\\n\\n\\nCourt Judges § 2.07 (6th ed. 2013). We have recognized that judges should use this Benchbook. See United States\\nv. McDowell, 814 F.2d 245, 249–50 (6th Cir. 1987).\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 22\\n\\n\\ndelivered jury instructions prior to the jury deliberation period. (See Trial Tr. Vol. 1, R. 108,\\nPage ID # 613; Trial Tr. Vol. 8, R. 121, Page ID # 1808.)\\n\\n In sum, we do not find that the jury instruction is clearly or obviously incorrect so as to\\nconstitute plain error.\\n\\n C. Response to Jurors’ Question\\n\\n Daneshvar also raises issue with the district court’s response to the jurors’ question,\\nwhich was posed to the court during the middle of jury deliberations. Daneshvar argues that,\\nafter the foreperson asked this question, the court failed to clarify the issue concerning the legal\\ndefinition of conspiracy.\\n\\n We find no error in the district court’s response to the jury. To explain our reasoning, we\\nrecount below the exchange between the district judge and the jury, and between the judge and\\nparties’ counsel, during jury deliberations.\\n\\n On the second day of deliberations, the jury requested readback of certain pieces of\\ntestimony. Later in the day, the court received a note from the jury stating: “We have reached\\nour verdict on Counts 2 and 3 SOLID. We are at a hard hung jury on Count 1, no budging.\\nPlease advise.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 9, R. 78, Page ID # 341.) At first, both defense counsel and the\\ngovernment requested an Allen charge,8 but then, both parties agreed with the court’s suggestion\\nto first speak to the foreperson. The court told the foreperson that, “[i]n my experience, you\\nhaven’t deliberated very long.” (Id. at Page ID # 342). The court then asked, “Is it your view\\nthat there’s a question that could be answered possibly or a portion of a testimony that could be\\nread possibly that might I suppose I would say achieve movement?” (Id.)\\n\\n The foreperson responded that the jurors were “getting hung up a little bit on the\\nconspiracy.” (Id. at Page ID # 343.) The foreperson asked, “So is conspiracy—how do I\\ndescribe this—can it be Mobile Doctors, the company as a whole? Does that make sense?” (Id.)\\nThe court responded, “Well, there’s an instruction on what constitutes conspiracy.” (Id.) The\\n\\n 8\\n In Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), the Supreme Court approved the use of a jury instruction\\nintended to prevent a hung jury by encouraging jurors to render a verdict. This instruction has now become known\\nas the Allen charge.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 23\\n\\n\\nforeperson then remarked that “[t]here’s a lot of variables to it that some rather than others are\\nhaving more difficulty with.” (Id.)\\n\\n The court next inquired as to whether “my rereading a portion of the instruction would be\\nhelpful?” (Id.) The foreperson replied that “it might be,” and directed the court to a portion of\\nthe jury instructions that was the issue. (Id. at Page ID # 343–44.) The foreperson stated that\\n“some of the jurors feel that . . . ,” but, before the foreperson or court could proceed further, the\\ngovernment requested a sidebar. (Id. at Page ID # 344.) The court sent the foreperson back to\\nthe jury room.\\n\\n The government attorney explained that she was afraid the foreperson would reveal what\\nthe jurors had been deliberating. The judge responded that the foreperson was “telling me that\\nthere’s a hang-up on what this means.” (Id. at 345.) The judge then said, “Let me suggest\\nsomething to you. [T]he note I just got does not come as a surprise to the Court. [I]f this is a\\nhung jury, the likelihood of you retrying this case is not very great.” (Id.) When the government\\nattorney protested to this characterization, the judge responded, “[w]ell, I’m telling you, you may\\nhave some problems in that regard, I don’t know. But I think you ought to let her [the\\nforeperson] elaborate.” (Id.)\\n\\n The government attorney then expressed concern that when the foreperson started to use\\nthe phrase “some of us,” the foreperson was about to reveal information about what the jurors\\nhad been deliberating about. (Id. at 346.) The judge responded, “I don’t know what she’s going\\nto say. I’ve asked her if the Court can give her any assistance. And she can tell us, and I can say\\nI can’t respond to that. That’s not revealing what—she’s revealing what the hang up is and she’s\\nsuggesting that the instructions are inadequate is what she’s saying.” (Id.)\\n\\n Defense counsel remarked that it appeared the jury was having trouble understanding\\nwhether Daneshvar “[c]an . . . be convicted of conspiring with the entity Mobile Doctors[.]\\n[A]nd the answer to that is no, you can’t conspire with an entity.” (Id.) The judge responded, “I\\ndon’t know what she was saying then. We started over.” (Id.) Defense counsel again reiterated\\nwhat he believed to be the foreperson’s question and added that “if they’re having problems with\\nthe instruction, . . . all the court can do is say, ‘you have the instructions.’” (Id. at Page ID #\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 24\\n\\n\\n346–47.) The court responded, “I understand that I cannot comment. I can only listen to her and\\nthen see what she has to say and then either say, ‘I—I appreciate what you’re saying,’” and then\\neither remind the jury to “take the instructions as a whole” and “can’t single out any one or\\nmore,” or “hear out” the foreperson. (Id.) Defense counsel agreed and stated, “I’m good with\\nthat.” (Id. at 347, 348 (“That’s fine with me . . .”).)\\n\\n At this point, the court summoned the foreperson, and asked, “tell me now, what is it . . .\\nthat concerns the panel?” (Id. at 348.) The foreperson responded, “So, before I do that, can I tell\\nyou about the conversation we just had . . . ?” (Id.) The foreperson then explained that “[s]ome\\npeople don’t think all the variables were made in Count 1 and they . . . [are] not going to come\\noff that opinion.” (Id.) The foreperson pointed out where in the jury instructions some jurors\\nfelt as though “[n]ot all of those [elements] have been made in this juror’s eyes.” (Id. at Page ID\\n# 348–50.) The court reacted by sending the foreperson back into the jury deliberation room and\\nagain conferring with the parties.\\n\\n During the sidebar, defense counsel “recommend[ed] that the Court take the verdict as to\\nCounts 2 and 3 and declare a hung jury as to Count 1.” (Id. at Page ID # 350.) The government\\nopposed this recommendation, requesting instead an Allen charge because the jury had “only\\nbeen deliberating for three hours yesterday and four or five hours today.” (Id.) After the court\\nagreed to give the Allen charge, defense counsel responded, “I’m a little worried of a rushed\\nverdict, although it sure doesn’t sound like it will be one. But if we would give them the Allen\\ncharge, I’m fine, and then let them go and come back Monday.” (Id. at Page ID # 350–51.)\\nThough the court at first resisted the defense’s adjournment request, ultimately the court agreed,\\npreviewed the Allen charge for the parties, and asked if it was okay. Both counsel agreed it was\\nacceptable.\\n\\n The court then read the jurors the Allen charge and sent them home for the weekend. The\\nfollowing Monday, May 8, 2017, the jury returned their verdict.\\n\\n On appeal, Daneshvar argues that the verdict was improper because the district court\\nshould have given a supplemental instruction defining conspiracy. The government responds\\nthat Danehvar’s challenge to the district court’s response should begin and end with waiver\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 25\\n\\n\\nbecause defense counsel intentionally relinquished any objection to the court’s ultimate decision\\nto read the Allen charge and make no other supplemental instruction. We agree.\\n\\n In United States v. Budd, 496 F.3d 517, 529 (6th Cir. 2007), we held that even when\\ncounsel had raised objections to the jury instructions, his subsequent statement that he was\\n“comfortable” with the instructions meant that he “cannot now complain about the court’s\\nexplanation of the Fourteenth Amendment standard.” Here, not only did defense counsel state\\nthat he was “fine” with the Allen charge, but also, after the foreperson asked whether “it”\\n(presumably, the conspiracy) could be “Mobile Doctors, the company as a whole,” Daneshvar’s\\ncounsel responded with: “[A]ll the court can do is say, ‘you have the instructions.’” (Id. at Page\\nID # 346–47, 350–51.) Thus, at no point did defense counsel ask for a supplemental jury\\ninstruction regarding conspiracy and in fact, counsel asked the judge to reread the conspiracy\\njury instructions as the court had initially delivered them.\\n\\n True, in United States v. Nunez, 889 F.2d 1564, 1568 (6th Cir. 1989), we held that\\n“[w]hen a jury indicates confusion about an important legal issue, it is not sufficient for the court\\nto rely on more general statements in its prior charge.” However, we further stated that “[t]he\\ngovernment is mistaken in stating that [the defendant] never raised the issue of whether an\\nagreement only between him and [the DEA agent] would be sufficient. [The defendant’s]\\nattorney made this very point in his closing argument. Furthermore, the jury raised the issue, and\\nthat imposed a duty upon the trial judge to respond.” Id. at 1569.\\n\\n Unlike the defense attorney in Nunez, defense counsel here did not raise the particular\\nissue that he now claims confused the jury. Second, and more importantly, the foreperson in\\nNunez clearly asked a question regarding the applicable law: “Can [the defendant] make an\\nagreement with [the DEA agent] to satisfy the agreement element in a conspiracy?” Id. at 1567.\\nThe Nunez foreperson also asked, “Can [the DEA agent] be considered a co-conspirator?” Id. In\\nthe case at hand, by contrast, the first time the foreperson appeared before the district court, she\\nasked, “So is conspiracy . . . can it be Mobile Doctors, the company as a whole?” (Trial Tr. Vol.\\n9, R. 78, Page ID # 343.) The second time the foreperson appeared before the court, she did not\\nask a question. She clarified that the hang-up was that “[s]ome people don’t think all of the\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 26\\n\\n\\nvariables were made in Count 1 and they . . . [are] not going to come off that opinion.” (Id. at\\n348.)\\n\\n It is not clear to us that the jury asked a question in the instant case so as to be considered\\nthe sort of definite inquiry giving rise to a supplemental instruction as was the case in Nunez.\\nWe found in Nunez that “[t]he jury pointedly asked if [the DEA agent] could be a co-conspirator\\nand if an agreement between [the defendant] and [the DEA agent] would ‘satisfy the agreement\\nelement in the conspiracy.’” 889 F.2d at 1569 (emphasis added). Here, the foreperson’s\\nquestion did not reference Daneshvar at all, let alone ask whether Daneshvar could conspire with\\nMobile Doctors under the applicable law regarding conspiracy. The trial judge also did not\\nindicate that he understood defense counsel’s interpretation of the juror question—that the jury\\nwanted to know if Daneshvar could conspire with Mobile Doctors—to be what the foreperson\\nasked. (Trial Tr. Vol. 9, R. 78, Page ID # 346 (“I don’t know what she was saying then.”).)\\n\\n In Nunez, we clarified that “the propriety of a supplemental instruction must be measured\\n‘by whether it fairly responds to the jury’s inquiry without creating . . . prejudice.’” Id. at 1568\\n(quoting United States v. Giacalone, 588 F.2d 1158, 1166 (6th Cir. 1978)). Here, the district\\njudge twice asked the foreperson to explain the question premised on the jury confusion, and\\nthus, the judge attempted to understand the question. In fact, the second time the foreperson was\\nbrought out to the court, the foreperson explained what the issue was: some jurors believed the\\ngovernment had not satisfied all of the elements required under Count 1. We cannot see how a\\nsupplemental instruction regarding the legal definition of conspiracy would have aided the jury\\nat this point, as it appears that the issue presented to the court concerned what to do when jurors\\ndo not budge from their differing opinions.\\n\\n Thus, the trial judge’s decision to read the Allen charge was more appropriately tailored\\nto the jury’s issue, because through the Allen charge, the judge urged the jury to reevaluate the\\nevidence presented for Count 1. The judge stated, “You have advised me that you believe you\\nare unable to reach a verdict and have asked what . . . can be done. This is an instruction . . . .\\n[T]his is how I’m going to answer your question.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 9, R. 78, Page ID # 353.) The\\njudge then proceeded to read the Allen charge. In this way, the judge appropriately provided a\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 27\\n\\n\\nsupplemental instruction “to clear up uncertainties which the jury brings to the court’s attention.”\\nGiacalone, 588 F.2d at 1166.\\n\\n We therefore hold that Daneshvar waived any objection to the district court’s response to\\nthe jury’s inquiry, but even if he had preserved the issue, the district court’s actions upon\\nreceiving the jury question were not in error.\\n\\n D. Sentencing Issues\\n\\n i. Acceptance of Guilt\\n\\n Daneshvar also argues that the district court considered an impermissible factor\\nimplicating Daneshvar’s constitutional right when the court sentenced him. Specifically,\\nDaneshvar argues that he was punished for deciding to go to trial, in violation of his Sixth\\nAmendment right to have a jury trial. We disagree.\\n\\n It is true that at sentencing, the district judge stated that “[t]here was a trial,” and “[i]t\\nreduces rather significantly the lower level of the variance because by going to trial the Court is\\nsatisfied that he does not acknowledge the fact that he was guilty, does not accept responsibility\\nfor his wrongdoing.” (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 107, Page ID # 583.) However, after there was\\nsome discussion during which the judge confirmed that he had reviewed Daneshvar’s\\nsupplemental sentencing memorandum, the judge explained:\\n\\n [N]owhere has there been an explanation for why the doctor went to trial.\\n Nowhere has there been an explanation for why he put the government to the\\n expense and difficulty of establishing his guilt by a jury. Now, that’s his\\n constitutional right, and I’m not denigrating it, but I have not seen anything where\\n the doctor—and it’s too late now—says I made a mistake, I was wrong, I should\\n be punished. Nowhere have I seen that.\\n\\n(Id. at Page ID # 588). Daneshvar’s counsel did not object to this statement by the court.\\n\\n The government argues that Daneshvar forfeited his sentencing objection because his\\ncounsel did not raise it below. But, the failure of Daneshvar’s counsel to object in the district\\ncourt does not forfeit his right to appeal the issue: as the government concedes, the sentencing\\ndecision is reviewable for plain error. See United States v. Cabrera, 811 F.3d 801, 808 (6th Cir.\\n2016); United States v. Davis, 751 F.3d 769, 773 (6th Cir. 2014); United States v. Vonner, 516\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 28\\n\\n\\nF.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). As we explain below, we find that the court did not\\nplainly err when considering Daneshvar’s lack of remorse and responsibility.\\n\\n Regardless of whether Daneshvar’s sentencing challenge “is categorized as being\\nprocedural, substantive, or a combination of the two, it is clear that a sentence based on an\\nimproper factor fails to achieve the purposes of § 3553(a) and may be unreasonable.” Cabrera,\\n811 F.3d at 809 (cleaned up). However, unlike the district court’s impermissible reliance upon\\nthe defendant’s decision not to testify at trial in Cabrera, Daneshvar’s refusal to accept\\nresponsibility was a permissible basis for the district court’s decision not to impose a lesser\\nsentence. See In re Cook, 551 F.3d 542, 551 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that it is “well established\\nthat a defendant’s remorse—or lack thereof—is an appropriate consideration in meting out\\npunishment.”). The transcript of Daneshvar’s sentencing in this case is clear: while the district\\njudge noted Daneshvar’s decision to go trial, the judge also stated, “that’s [Daneshvar’s]\\nconstitutional right, and I’m not denigrating it.” (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 107, Page ID # 588.)\\nThe judge explained that the real issue was that he “ha[d] not seen anything where the doctor . . .\\nsays I made a mistake, I was wrong, I should be punished. Nowhere have I seen that.” (Id.)\\n\\n The district court’s statements here were markedly different than those in Cabrera, where\\nthe sentencing judge recognized that “everybody has the constitutional right to go to trial,” but\\nalso found that the defendant “never put [himself] on the record . . . at the trial.” 811 F.3d at\\n807. The Cabrera sentencing judge further stated, “I have to tell you, from my standpoint . . . I\\nview that as an incredibly cynical attempt to game the whole system here[,]” and that the\\ndefendant “conjured up” a “fantastical story,” “evinc[ing] a total disrespect for the law.” Id.\\nHere, by contrast, the district court did not rely upon Daneshvar’s decision to go to trial as\\nevidencing a malicious intent towards the criminal justice system or resulting in disrespect for\\nthe law. Instead, the district judge explained that his primary concern was Daneshvar’s\\nacceptance of guilt.\\n\\n Daneshvar’s argument is similar to that raised by the defendant in Mitchell. In that case,\\n“[a] significant aspect of [the defendant’s] argument is that he was not involved in the . . .\\nscheme” and thus, the defendant argued “that he cannot take responsibility for something that he\\ndid not do.” 681 F.3d at 884. Similarly, Daneshvar argued that he was not fully aware of the\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 29\\n\\n\\nscheme, nor was he an essential part of it. Daneshvar’s counsel spent much of the trial\\ndemonstrating that Daneshvar was less culpable and less involved in the conspiracy than other\\nmembers.\\n\\n As we held in Mitchell, it is relevant that the jury found Daneshvar had participated in the\\nconspiracy, which is a permissible fact for a district court’s 3553(a) analysis. “[T]he district\\ncourt found that [Daneshvar’s] continued efforts to deny his involvement demonstrated a failure\\nto take responsibility for his crime and a lack of remorse for the harm he had caused. The judge\\ncould have reasonably concluded that [Daneshvar]’s dishonesty regarding important pieces of\\nevidence indicated that he had not fully accepted responsibility for his participation in the\\nconspiracy.” Id. (cleaned up) (citing United States v. Sutton, 387 F. App’x 595, 607 (6th Cir.\\n2010)).\\n\\n “Accordingly, ‘it was not [Daneshvar]’s exercise of his right to [a jury trial], but rather,\\nthat he did not accept responsibility for his crime, that the district court took into account in\\nconsidering the § 3553(a) factors. This was not error.’” Id. (citing United States v. Delano, 411\\nF. App’x 795, 799 (6th Cir. 2011)). In fact, the district court clarified that it recognized\\nDaneshvar’s right to go to trial, and this was not a basis upon which to penalize or “denegrat[e]”\\nhim. (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 107, Page ID # 588.) Rather, Daneshvar’s “failure to take\\nresponsibility and [his] lack of remorse were two facts that the court considered in weighing the\\nvarious § 3553(a) factors that it found to be most relevant to the case at hand. This was not\\nunreasonable,” nor do we find it to be plainly erroneous. Mitchell, 681 F.3d at 885.\\n\\n ii. Minor Role Reduction\\n\\n Daneshvar argues that the court also erred when it denied his request for a two-level\\nreduction under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3B1.2 based on his\\nminor role in the conspiracy.\\n\\n The defendant bears the burden of proving a mitigating role by a preponderance of the\\nevidence. See United States v. Roberts, 223 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2000). “Generally, this\\nCourt reviews a district court’s legal conclusions regarding the Sentencing Guidelines de novo\\nand its factual findings for clear error, though certain exceptions apply.” United States v.\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 30\\n\\n\\nWilliams, 420 F. App’x 517, 518 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\\nWe have explained that “[t]he ‘minor participant’ reduction is available only to a party who is\\n‘less culpable than most other participants’ and ‘substantially less culpable than the average\\nparticipant.’” United States v. Lloyd, 10 F.3d 1197, 1220 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting U.S.S.G\\n§ 3B1.2, cmt. n.3). “Whether a defendant is entitled to a downward offense-level adjustment\\nunder U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 depends heavily on factual determinations by the district court, which\\nthis court reviews for clear error.” United States v. Auston, 355 F. App’x 919, 925 (6th Cir.\\n2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\\n\\n The issue arises from the district’s failure to make any factual determinations on the\\nrecord. During Daneshvar’s sentencing, defense counsel asked the court to rule on his objection\\nto the Presentence Report in which he asked for a two-point reduction for Daneshvar’s purported\\nminor role in the conspiracy. (Sentencing Hr’g Trans., R. 107, Page ID # 579–80, 582.) The\\ndistrict judge stated that Daneshvar “will not be given an adjustment for [a] minor role. He was\\na major player.” (Id. at Page ID # 582.) The court offered no other analysis, and defense\\ncounsel did not object.\\n\\n It is true that typically, when a defendant challenges a district court’s denial of his request\\nfor a role reduction to his sentence, we have found that the district court did not abuse its\\ndiscretion or commit clear error if the district court provided an explanation for why it denied the\\ndefendant’s request. But here, we are faced with the unique situation in which a district court\\nhas made no factual findings or elaborated upon its rationale, although the sentencing judge was\\nthe same judge who presided over the trial and thus, presumably had some insight into\\nDaneshvar’s role. We adopt here the rationale of the Ninth Circuit, holding that “a district court\\nneed not tick off sentencing factors to show that it considered them,” but a court cannot, for\\ninstance, “adopt[] the government’s argument with little elaboration.” United States v. Diaz,\\n884 F.3d 911, 914–15, 918 (9th Cir. 2018). In the instant case, we find that the district court\\nerred in denying the defendant’s role reduction request without elaboration on the record as to\\nwhy the court found Daneshvar to be a “major player.”\\n\\n Is this error harmless? “Under the harmless error test, a remand for an error\\nat sentencing is required unless we are certain that any such error was harmless—i.e. any such\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 31\\n\\n\\nerror ‘did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed.’” United States v.\\nHazelwood, 398 F.3d 792, 801 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193,\\n203 (1992)).\\n\\n In determining whether Daneshvar was “less culpable than most other participants”\\nand/or “substantially less culpable than the average participant,” we turn to the U.S.S.G. advisory\\ncommittee notes to § 3B1.2, which provide a non-exhaustive list of factors for a court’s\\nconsideration:\\n\\n (i) The degree to which the defendant understood the scope and structure of\\n the criminal activity;\\n (ii) The degree to which the defendant participated in planning or organizing\\n the criminal activity;\\n (iii) The degree to which the defendant exercised decision-making authority or\\n influenced the exercise of decision-making authority;\\n (iv) The nature and extent of the defendant’s participation in the commission\\n of the criminal activity, including the acts the defendant performed and the\\n responsibility and discretion the defendant had in performing those acts;\\n (v) The degree to which the defendant stood to benefit from the criminal\\n activity.\\n\\nU.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C).\\n\\n There was evidence that Daneshvar significantly benefitted from the criminal activity:\\nalthough he was with Mobile Doctors for approximately one year, he was paid the most of all of\\nthe physicians employed by the company, receiving over $200,000 in salary payments plus a\\n$15,000 bonus. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C)(v). Daneshvar also had the authority to certify that patients\\nwere homebound, which he did even with the knowledge that many of his patients were not\\nhomebound; he signed off on routing slips including at least three diagnoses for each patient,\\neven when the patient did not suffer from the diagnoses; and at times, Daneshvar personally\\nauthorized Mobile Doctors to bill Medicare for the two highest billing codes for patients from\\nwhom the codes did not apply. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C)(iii) (iv). Although Daneshvar was not\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 32\\n\\n\\ninvolved in the planning or organization of Mobile Doctors, nor was he aware of every part of\\nthe scheme, he understood how Mobile Doctors generated money from fraudulently billing\\nMedicare because he received a pay chart detailing the amount Mobile Doctors paid to each\\nphysician per billed Medicare code. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C)(i) and (ii).\\n\\n For these reasons, we find that although the district court erred in its analysis, the error\\nwas harmless because the evidence plainly demonstrated that Daneshvar was not a minor\\nparticipant in the conspiracy.\\n\\n iii. Calculation of Guidelines Range\\n\\n Daneshvar argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district\\ncourt did not calculate the appropriate sentencing Guidelines range before pronouncing the\\nsentence.\\n\\n The district court began the sentencing by stating Daneshvar’s offense level, criminal\\nhistory score, and the United States Probation Office’s recommendation of a sentencing range of\\n63 to 78 months. (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 107, Page ID # 579.) Next, the court stated that,\\nbased upon the parties’ sentencing memoranda, it “intends to vary the sentence from the\\nrecommendation and the guidelines.” (Id.) Thus, the court asked whether, “[i]n light of the fact\\nthat the Court intends to grant a variance that will be rather substantial,” was it “necessary to\\nresolve” outstanding objections. (Id.) Defense counsel responded that although he “would say\\nsay no,” it was not necessary to resolve the objections, counsel was under the impression that our\\ncircuit required resolution of outstanding objections and an articulation of the Guidelines range\\nduring sentencing. (Id. at Page ID # 579–80.) The court accepted counsel’s request and then\\nwent through each of the outstanding objections.\\n\\n First, the court explained that as to the objection concerning the “loss amount,” it found\\n“the restitution amount as a compromise between what the defendant says and what the\\ngovernment says” because “there hasn’t been an independent audit presented to the Court\\nestablishing the loss by the Government.” (Id. at Page ID # 581.) The second objection dealt\\nwith the “abuse of trust” enhancement in the Sentencing Guidelines. Defense counsel argued\\nagainst application of the enhancement, and the court agreed. The third and final objection\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 33\\n\\n\\nconcerned Daneshvar’s role in the offense, and, as detailed earlier, the court rejected\\nDaneshvar’s request for a role reduction.\\n\\n The court next moved into consideration of Daneshvar’s sentence. As we discussed\\nearlier, the court explained it did not find that Daneshvar had shown remorse or accepted\\nresponsibility for his actions. The court also inquired about the sentences of Daneshvar’s co-\\nconspirators, as well as particular similarities and differences between the cases, to avoid\\nsentencing disparity.\\n\\n The court then asked if the parties wished to address the court, and a lengthy discussion\\nensued. After hearing arguments from both parties, the court pronounced the sentence.\\n\\n “A district court commits procedural error by ‘failing to calculate (or improperly\\ncalculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the\\n§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately\\nexplain the chosen sentence.’” United States v. Fowler, 819 F.3d 298, 304 (6th Cir. 2016)\\n(citation omitted). In United States v. Blackie, 548 F.3d 395, 401, 403 (6th Cir. 2008), the court\\ndetermined that it could not “meaningfully review [the defendant’s] sentence” because the\\ndistrict court had not acknowledged the Guidelines range, failed to give specific reasons for its\\nvariance, and failed to clarify whether it had rejected various Guidelines enhancements. We\\nhave held that this “combination warrant[ed] reversal.” United States v. Turner, 536 F. App’x\\n614, 620 (6th Cir. 2013).\\n\\n Here, the district court began by acknowledging the recommended Guidelines sentencing\\nrange, including Daneshvar’s criminal history score and total offense level that led to this range.\\nAt no point did the court indicate that it considered the Guidelines range as mandatory; in fact,\\nthe court announced that it would be varying from the Guidelines range. Next, the court\\nconsidered all of the outstanding objections and resolved them. Finally, the court provided\\nspecific reasons both for and against variance, including: (1) Daneshvar’s lack of acceptance of\\nresponsibility, (2) sentencing disparities in comparison to Daneshvar’s co-conspirators and,\\n(3) sentencing disparities in comparison to other physicians who were charged under the same\\nstatute. Only then did the court pronounce the sentence. Pursuant to our circuit’s case law, the\\n\\f No. 18-1101 United States v. Daneshvar Page 34\\n\\n\\nsentence was procedurally reasonable, and the district court did not err.9 See also United States\\nv. Aleo, 681 F.3d 290, 299 (6th Cir. 2012) (finding no error when the sentencing judge did not\\nre-calculate the Guidelines range after the defendant raised an objection to his sentencing\\nenhancement because the district court properly resolved the objection to the enhancement).\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n Medicare fraud has long plagued the American healthcare system. Fraud and systematic\\nupcoding are estimated at roughly 10 percent of Medicare’s costs every year. The taxes spent on\\nprosecution of Medicare fraud add even more to the program’s costs. But, the expense and\\ndifficulty of trying a Medicare fraud case, or indeed, any criminal case in which the defendant\\nchooses to go to trial, are part of the worthwhile price we pay as a people who have the\\nconstitutional right of trial by jury. Daneshvar was able to exercise this right and his sentence\\ndoes not reflect that he was unfairly penalized in any way.\\n\\n For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM both the district court’s rulings at trial and\\nDaneshvar’s sentence.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 9\\n We also note that after the court announced the sentence, the government requested to put into the record\\nthe Guidelines calculation. The government stated that Daneshvar’s offense level was 20 (from a base offense level\\nof 6, plus a 14-point enhancement for the loss amount, and the court did not accept any other enhancements). The\\ncourt accepted this calculation, as did defense counsel, who also stated that he believed this resulted in a Guidelines\\nrange of 37 to 46 months. Thus, the appropriate Guidelines calculation was placed in the record for our review.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2097,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4624850,"string":"4,624,850"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"John SCHICKEL, in His Personal and Official Capacities; David Watson, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Ken Moellman, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig C. DILGER, in His Official Capacity as Chair and Member, Kentucky Registry of Election Finance ; Rosemary F. Center; Terry Naydan; Reid Haire; Robert D. Mattingley; Chastity Ross; Thomas B. Stephens ; John R. Steffen, Defendants-Appellees, George C. Troutman, in His Official Capacity as Chairman and Member of the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission ; Elmer George; Pat Freibert; Tony Goetz; Ken Winters ; Tom Jensen; Sheldon Baugh ; Phil Huddleston; Anthony M. Wilhoit; H. John Schaaf, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"John Schickel v. Craig Dilger"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-30"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-6456/6505"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Merritt, Cook, Larsen\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"COOK, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0110p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nJOHN SCHICKEL, in his Personal and Official ┐\\nCapacities; DAVID WATSON, │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, │\\n │\\n │\\nKEN MOELLMAN, JR., │\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, > Nos. 17-6456/6505\\n │\\n │\\n v. │\\n │\\nCRAIG C. DILGER, in his Official Capacity as Chair │\\nand Member, Kentucky Registry of Election Finance; │\\nROSEMARY F. CENTER; TERRY NAYDAN; REID HAIRE; │\\nROBERT D. MATTINGLEY; CHASTITY ROSS; THOMAS B. │\\nSTEPHENS; JOHN R. STEFFEN, │\\n │\\n │\\n Defendants-Appellees, │\\n │\\nGEORGE C. TROUTMAN, in his Official Capacity as │\\nChairman and Member of the Kentucky Legislative │\\nEthics Commission; ELMER GEORGE; PAT FREIBART; │\\nTONY GOETZ; KEN WINTERS; TOM JENSEN; SHELDON │\\nBAUGH; PHIL HUDDLESTON; ANTHONY M. WILHOIT; H. │\\nJOHN SCHAFF, │\\n Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington.\\n No. 2:15-cv-00155—William O. Bertelsman, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: October 18, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 30, 2019\\n\\n Before: MERRITT, COOK, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Andrew G. Beshear, OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL,\\nFrankfort, Kentucky, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Christopher D. Wiest, CHRIS WIEST,\\nATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Emily Dennis,\\nKENTUCKY REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellees. ON\\nBRIEF: Matt James, La Tasha Buckner, OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY\\nGENERAL, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Thomas B. Bruns, BRUNS,\\nCONNELL, VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, Robert A. Winter, Jr.,\\nFORT MITCHELL, KENTUCKY, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Emily Dennis,\\nKENTUCKY REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellees.\\nBarbara B. Edelman, Haley Trogdlen McCauley, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, Lexington,\\nKentucky, Tara Malloy, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n COOK, Circuit Judge. One sitting state senator and one prospective candidate for elected\\noffice in Kentucky challenged several state campaign finance and ethics laws, claiming\\nviolations of their First Amendment rights to free speech and association and Fourteenth\\nAmendment right to equal protection. Kentucky argues that these measures, enacted to prevent\\ncorruption and protect its citizens’ trust in their elected officials, comport with the Constitution.\\nThe district court, for the most part, disagreed with the Commonwealth. We see it differently.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n John Schickel, the incumbent state senator for the 11th Senatorial District in Kentucky,\\nand David Watson, who unsuccessfully ran for the 6th House District in 2016, brought this suit\\nalleging that several of Kentucky’s campaign finance and ethics statutes violated their rights\\nprotected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sued several members of Kentucky’s\\nRegistry of Election Finance (KREF) and Legislative Ethics Commission (KLEC), agencies\\ncharged with enforcing the campaign finance and ethics laws.\\n\\n This appeal challenges the now defunct campaign finance provision that restricted the\\namount a candidate may loan to his campaign. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 121.150(13). As for the\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nethics provisions, the legislators challenge seven of them. Of the seven, three groups of two\\nmirroring provisions—one proscribing certain conduct by legislators and the corollary version\\nfor lobbyists—impose:\\n\\n (1) a contribution ban, §§ 6.767(2) and 6.811(6), which prohibits a legislator,\\n candidate for the legislature, or his or her campaign committee from accepting a\\n campaign contribution from a lobbyist, and a lobbyist from making the same;\\n (2) a regular session contribution ban, §§ 6.767(3) and 6.811(7), which\\n prohibits a legislator, candidate for the legislature, or his or her campaign\\n committee from accepting a campaign contribution from an employer of a\\n lobbyist or a political committee (PAC) during a regular session of the General\\n Assembly, and an employer of a lobbyist from making the same; and\\n (3) a gift ban, §§ 6.751(2) and 6.811(4), which prohibits a legislator or his spouse\\n from accepting “anything of value” from a lobbyist or his employer, and a\\n lobbyist or employer of a lobbyist from knowingly offering the same to a\\n legislator, candidate, or his family.\\n\\nThe final ethics provision applies only to lobbyists:\\n\\n (4) a solicitation/treasurer ban, § 6.811(5), which prohibits a lobbyist from\\n (i) serving as a campaign treasurer, and (ii) directly soliciting, controlling, or\\n delivering a campaign contribution to a legislator or candidate.\\n\\n The district court dismissed the campaign finance claim as moot because a legislative\\namendment eliminated the provision. As for the ethics provisions, the court found that the laws\\nburdened “core political speech” and curtailed freedom of association, requiring strict scrutiny of\\nevery ethics provision except the regular session contribution ban. It ultimately upheld the\\nregular session contribution ban, but found all the other challenged ethics provisions\\nunconstitutional and unenforceable.\\n\\n Defendants then moved this court for a stay pending appeal, which we granted. The\\nparties cross-appealed.\\n\\n II. CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROVISION\\n\\n We begin with the self-funding restriction, repealed in 2017 by the Kentucky legislature,\\nwhich limited the amount a candidate could personally loan his own campaign. See\\n§ 121.150(13) (repealed 2017). Though this court found the provision wholly unconstitutional in\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nAnderson v. Spear, 356 F.3d 651, 673 (6th Cir. 2004), Schickel and Watson nevertheless worry\\nthat KREF may yet enforce the statute.\\n\\n To establish standing under Article III, a plaintiff must show, among other things, an\\n“injury in fact.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). In a pre-enforcement\\nchallenge, such as here, a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement by alleging “an\\nintention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but\\nproscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.” Susan B.\\nAnthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 159 (2014) (quoting Babbitt v. United Farm Workers\\nNat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979)). “A threat of future enforcement may be ‘credible’ when\\nthe same conduct has drawn enforcement actions or threats of enforcement in the past.” Kiser v.\\nReitz, 765 F.3d 601, 609 (6th Cir. 2014).\\n\\n Here, the legislators have not shown a credible threat of prosecution. KREF has not\\nenforced this provision since Anderson struck it down. Indeed, “if a statute is unconstitutional\\non its face, the State may not enforce the statute under any circumstances.” Women’s Med.\\nProf’l Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 193 (6th Cir. 1997). The legislators cite several alleged\\nenforcements, but all involve other provisions—§§ 121.180 and 121.150(1), (6), (12), and (20)—\\nnot this one. Cf. Russell v. Lundergan-Grimes, 784 F.3d 1037, 1049 (6th Cir. 2015) (history of\\npast enforcement against others established injury in fact). Nor have the legislators shown that\\nKREF has any intention to enforce this provision. At its 30(b)(6) deposition, in its motion for\\nsummary judgment, and during oral argument before this panel, KREF explicitly disavowed\\nenforcement against the legislators for any violations of this provision. The legislators’ case\\ndoes not resemble those it cites to support its position.\\n\\n Thus, because there exists no credible threat of prosecution, the legislators lack standing\\nto challenge this provision. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claim on standing\\ngrounds.\\n\\n III. LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS\\n\\n Before addressing the merits, we consider whether the legislators have standing to assert\\nchallenges to the four ethics provisions governing only the conduct of lobbyists. If the\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nlegislators cannot establish constitutional standing, “their claims must be dismissed for lack of\\nsubject matter jurisdiction.” Loren v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 505 F.3d 598, 607 (6th\\nCir. 2007). Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing standing, and they must support each\\nelement “in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof,\\ni.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at successive stages of the litigation.” Fair\\nElections Ohio v. Husted, 770 F.3d 456, 459 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561).\\nThe legislators may not rely on mere allegations, but “must set forth by affidavit or other\\nevidence specific facts” to show standing. McKay v. Federspiel, 823 F.3d 862, 867 (6th Cir.\\n2016) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561).\\n\\n “[T]he nature and extent of facts that must be averred . . . to establish standing depends\\nconsiderably upon whether the plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or forgone action) at\\nissue.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. When he is, “there is ordinarily little question” that the plaintiff\\nhas standing. Id. at 561–62. But when he is not—when his “asserted injury arises from the\\ngovernment’s allegedly unlawful regulation . . . of someone else”—we require much more. Id. at\\n562. In such circumstances, “causation and redressability ordinarily hinge on the response of the\\nregulated (or regulable) third party to the government action or inaction.” Id.; ASARCO Inc. v.\\nKadish, 490 U.S. 605, 615 (1989) (noting that plaintiff’s ability to satisfy the essential elements\\nof standing “depends on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the courts\\nand whose exercise of broad and legitimate discretion the courts cannot presume either to control\\nor to predict”). The burden therefore falls on the plaintiff to present facts showing that the third\\nparty’s “choices have been or will be made in such manner as to produce causation and permit\\nredressability of injury.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 562. This does not preclude a showing of standing,\\nbut it ordinarily makes it “‘substantially more difficult’ to establish.” Id. (citation omitted); see\\nWarth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 504 (1975).\\n\\n The legislators face an uphill climb: they are not the object of the lobbying restrictions.\\nBut the legislators can establish standing from the operation of these lobbying restrictions; that\\nis, by showing that a restriction has been applied to a lobbyist, his employer, or a PAC—or\\nimminently will be—and “ha[s] caused or will imminently cause” plaintiffs’ concrete injury. See\\nTenn. Republican Party v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 863 F.3d 507, 520 (6th Cir. 2017). Here, the\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nlegislators claim the operation of these statutes infringe their right to associate, “receive\\ninformation,” and “receive[] contributions.” An individual’s right to associate, “broadly\\ndefined” by the Supreme Court, includes “the ancillary right of the candidate to ‘amas[s] the\\nresources necessary for effective advocacy.’” Frank v. City of Akron, 290 F.3d 813, 818 (6th\\nCir. 2002) (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 396–97 (2000)). Thus, the\\nlegislators could also prove injury by showing that the challenged laws “w[ere] so radical in\\neffect as to render political association ineffective, drive the sound of a candidate’s voice below\\nthe level of notice, and render contributions pointless.” Shrink, 528 U.S. at 397.\\n\\n Affidavits from Schickel and Watson do not establish an injury from the operation of the\\ncontribution ban or regular session contribution ban. Even assuming a right to receive\\ncontributions, compare Dean v. Blumenthal, 577 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[A]lthough\\nRandall did not recognize a First Amendment right to receive campaign contributions, its\\nanalysis did not foreclose such recognition.”), with Interpipe Contracting, Inc. v. Becerra, 898\\nF.3d 879, 894 (9th Cir. 2018) (“But while the First Amendment protects the right of an\\nindividual to express herself through the medium of finance, it does not establish a free-floating\\nright to receive the funds necessary to broadcast one’s speech.”), the legislators have not shown\\nthese restrictions have caused or imminently will cause them injury.\\n\\n Because they have not done so, “by affidavit or other evidence,” they lack standing to\\nchallenge these lobbying restrictions. See McKay, 823 F.3d at 867. The legislators offer no\\naffidavit from a lobbyist or his employer regarding these restrictions, and they fail to provide\\nevidence that a specific lobbyist, his employer, or a PAC attempted to help in ways proscribed by\\nthe provisions—e.g., serve as treasurer, solicit contributions, or make a contribution—but was\\nturned away due to the lobbying restrictions. The lack of such evidence dooms their claims. See\\nTenn. Republican Party, 863 F.3d at 517 (“[T]here is no reason why Petitioners could not have\\nput forth an affidavit from a particular municipal advisor professional who would have\\ncontributed more than $250 were it not for the 2016 Amendments.”); Lavin v. Husted, 689 F.3d\\n543, 545–47 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding that Medicaid providers had standing to challenge a law\\nthat did not punish them because they had “attempted to contribute” to a state Attorney General\\ncandidate who “refused to accept their contributions, citing Ohio law”).\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n Instead, Schickel and Watson offer their own affidavits, stating their belief that others\\nwould like to violate the restrictions. Schickel asserted that, if not for the contribution\\nrestrictions, he “would accept campaign donations[] from employers of lobbyists” and “from\\ncertain registered lobbyists . . . whose values I share.” R. 65-2, Schickel Aff. ¶¶ 26, 27.\\nMirroring Schickel’s affidavit, Watson averred that “I would, if not prohibited, accept donations\\nfrom [two organizations], and would also accept, if not prohibited, donations on behalf of the\\nlobbyists that lobby for them.” R. 65-3, Watson Aff. ¶ 37. But the assurance that both would\\naccept such contributions means nothing in the absence of an affidavit or other evidence\\nestablishing that such contributions were attempted or would be in the imminent future. See\\nClapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 n.2)\\n(“[I]mminence is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, [but] it cannot be stretched beyond its\\npurpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III\\npurposes—that the injury is certainly impending.”).\\n\\n As for the provision that bans gifts by lobbyists, the legislators’ statements fall short.\\nBoth attested that, before this law’s enactment, they “would not hesitate to take a meeting at a\\nlobbyist’s office.” R. 65-2, Schickel Aff. ¶ 29; R. 65-3, Watson Aff. ¶ 39. After the 2014\\namendment removed the de minimis exception, however, both fear doing so, since “sitting in an\\nair conditioned office” or “receiving a piece of paper to take notes” could be considered\\n“something of value.” R. 65-2, Schickel Aff. ¶ 29; R. 65-3, Watson Aff. ¶ 39. But the\\nlegislators cannot manufacture standing by “inflicting harm on themselves based on their fear of\\nhypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” Clapper, 568 U.S. at 416. According\\nto Schickel, he “used to take turns buying the soda or cup of coffee” with constituents and\\nlobbyists but now does so with only constituents “given the rules in place,” R. 65-2, Schickel\\nAff. ¶ 28, but this alleged injury hinges entirely “on the unfettered choices made” by lobbyists to\\npurchase coffee for him, Kadish, 490 U.S. at 615. This statement offers little more than\\nSchickel’s own guess as to why legislators have stopped purchasing coffee for him (perhaps they\\nprefer the new status quo), and thus fails to adduce facts sufficient to show that the choice not to\\nbuy him coffee can be fairly traced to this provision. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 567 (“Standing is\\nnot ‘an ingenious academic exercise in the conceivable.’” (quoting United States v. Students\\nChallenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 688 (1973))).\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\n The legislators’ affidavits also fall short on the solicitation/treasurer restriction. Each\\nincludes just the lone statement referencing an injury: “[I] would like to have a legislative agent\\nserve as my campaign treasurer, and I am aware of legislative agents that would like to solicit\\nothers to make campaign donations to me, but cannot under the current legislative ethics\\nscheme.” R. 65-2, Schickel Aff. ¶ 33; R. 65-3, Watson Aff. ¶ 42. This is not the proof needed at\\nsummary judgment. Miyazawa v. City of Cincinnati, 45 F.3d 126, 127 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding\\nat summary judgment stage that plaintiff lacked standing because she “merely asserted a general\\ncomplaint that an unidentified candidate that she may want to vote for may not be eligible to run\\nfor that office”).\\n\\n Last, we turn to the legislators’ suggestion that “receiving donations and giving of\\ndonations are two sides of the same coin,” such that a party who has standing to challenge one\\nhas standing to challenge the other. Appellee Br. at 59. But in the one case they cite for this\\nproposition, the political committee and lobbyist acquired standing to challenge the restricting of\\nsoliciting by legislators based on showing that the provision injured them rather than the\\nlegislators or candidates. N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Bartlett, 168 F.3d 705, 710 (4th Cir. 1999).\\n\\n In the absence of specific evidence supporting standing to challenge the lobbying\\nrestrictions, the legislators may not.\\n\\n IV. ETHICS PROVISIONS\\n\\n We now examine the legislators’ challenges to the constitutionality of the three ethics\\nprovisions that target their own conduct: the contribution ban, regular session contribution ban,\\nand gift ban.\\n\\n A. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review de novo a district court’s judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n56. Allied Constr. Indus. v. City of Cincinnati, 879 F.3d 215, 219 (6th Cir. 2018). Summary\\njudgment may be entered only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the\\nmovant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Where, as here, the\\nparties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, “the court must evaluate each party’s motion\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\non its own merits, taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against the party\\nwhose motion is under consideration.” McKay, 823 F.3d at 866 (citation omitted).\\n\\n B. Level of Scrutiny Applied\\n\\n The legislators argue that limiting their receiving contributions burdens political speech.\\nBut contribution limits entail “only a marginal restriction upon the contributor’s ability to engage\\nin free communication,” as they permit “the symbolic expression of support evidenced by a\\ncontribution but do[] not in any way infringe the contributor’s freedom to discuss candidates and\\nissues.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 20–21 (1976) (per curiam). As such, they are subject to\\nclosely drawn scrutiny, a “lesser but still ‘rigorous standard of review.’” McCutcheon v. FEC,\\n572 U.S. 185, 197 (2014) (plurality opinion) (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 29). And\\ncontribution bans—such as those enacted here—receive the same treatment. FEC v. Beaumont,\\n539 U.S. 146, 161–62 (2003) (expressly declining to apply strict scrutiny to a contribution ban).\\n\\n The same goes for the gift ban. See Preston v. Leake, 660 F.3d 726, 729–30 (4th Cir.\\n2011) (upholding lobbyist contribution ban, which defined contributions to include gifts, under\\nclosely drawn scrutiny). Restrictions on gift giving, like those on contributions, are marginal\\nrestrictions that do not in any way hinder lobbyists’ or legislators’ ability to discuss candidates or\\nissues. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 20–21. Indeed, if contribution restrictions “lie closer to the edges\\nthan to the core of political expression,” Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 161, gifts of value hug the fringe.\\nSee United States v. Ring, 706 F.3d 460, 466 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he First Amendment interest\\nin giving hockey tickets to public officials is, at least compared to the interest in contributing to\\npolitical campaigns, de minimis.”).\\n\\n C. Applying Closely Drawn Scrutiny\\n\\n Closely drawn scrutiny requires the Commonwealth to demonstrate that each provision\\nfurthers “a sufficiently important interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary\\nabridgement of associational freedoms.” McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 197 (quoting Buckley,\\n424 U.S. at 25); see Lavin, 689 F.3d at 547.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\n 1. Do the challenged provisions further a “sufficiently important” government interest?\\n\\n The Commonwealth asserts a familiar interest for the ethics provisions: the prevention of\\nactual quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. See § 6.606. This interest has long been\\nconsidered sufficiently important to justify regulating campaign contributions, and “may\\nproperly be labeled ‘compelling,’ so that [it] would satisfy even strict scrutiny.” McCutcheon,\\n572 U.S. at 199 (quoting FEC v. Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480, 496–\\n97 (1985)). It follows that this focus on preventing corruption or its appearance would also\\njustify Kentucky’s gift ban. See Fla. Ass’n of Prof’l Lobbyists, Inc. v. Div. of Legislative Info.\\nServs. of the Fla. Office of Legislative Servs., 525 F.3d 1073, 1080–81 (11th Cir. 2008)\\n(upholding lobbyist gift ban); Preston, 660 F.3d at 729. But having an undeniably important\\ninterest is not enough; Kentucky must still “demonstrate how its [ethics provisions] further[]”\\nthat interest. Lavin, 689 F.3d at 547.\\n\\n To do so, Kentucky must show only “a cognizable risk of corruption”—a “risk of quid\\npro quo corruption or its appearance.” McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 210 (emphasis added); see\\nCitizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 357 (2010) (noting that “restrictions on direct\\ncontributions are preventative” and that the Buckley Court “sustained limits on direct\\ncontributions in order to ensure against the reality or appearance of corruption”) (emphases\\nadded). The threat of corruption must be more than “mere conjecture,” Shrink, 528 U.S. at 392,\\nand cannot be “illusory,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 27. But a state need not produce evidence of\\nactual instances of corruption. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 150 (2003), overruled in\\npart on other grounds by Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 365–66; Lair v. Motl, 873 F.3d 1170, 1178\\n(9th Cir. 2017); Ognibene v. Parkes, 671 F.3d 174, 183 (2d Cir. 2011) (“It is not necessary to\\nproduce evidence of actual corruption to demonstrate the sufficiently important interest in\\npreventing the appearance of corruption.”). Ultimately, “[t]he quantum of empirical evidence\\nneeded . . . will vary up or down with the novelty and plausibility of the justification raised.”\\nShrink, 528 U.S. at 391.\\n\\n The Commonwealth’s briefs describe a sordid history. In the wake of an infamous FBI\\ninvestigation into public corruption in Kentucky that led to “the indictment and conviction of\\nlegislators, former legislators, and lobbyists for criminal misconduct,” known as Operation\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nBOPTROT, the state legislature enacted the Ethics Code. Assoc. Indus. of Ky. v.\\nCommonwealth, 912 S.W.2d 947, 950 (Ky. 1995). In the aftermath of BOPTROT, the public\\nlost faith in its elected officials, and public standing plunged to an all-time low. Tom Loftus &\\nAl Cross, Lies, Bribes and Videotape, The Courier-Journal, July 1, 1993. Corruption was\\nrampant and came cheap—in some cases, legislators accepted as little as $400 from lobbyists in\\nexchange for influencing legislation. Id.; Martin Booe, Ethics: Kentuckians Amazed that $400\\nCan Buy a Lawmaker, L.A. Times, April 13, 1993.\\n\\n Kentucky’s stated interest “[is] neither novel nor implausible.” Shrink, 528 U.S. at 391.\\nThe contribution ban—enacted against this backdrop and untouched by the 2014 amendments—\\nplainly furthers Kentucky’s anticorruption interest. Its own supreme court agreed, rejecting\\nseveral constitutional challenges to the Code’s provisions by an employer of lobbyists and\\nholding that the state demonstrated “a compelling interest in insuring the proper operation of a\\ndemocratic government and deterring corruption, as well as the appearance of corruption.”\\nAssoc. Indus., 912 S.W.2d at 953; see § 6.606.\\n\\n The legislators argue that Operation BOPTROT involved only the horse racing industry,\\nand therefore cannot serve as the basis for restrictions on all lobbyists. Given that lobbyists were\\ncaught up in BOPTROT, however, we find this argument specious. A state need not wait for the\\nentanglement of every industry or every lobbyist in scandal before taking action. See Ognibene,\\n671 F.3d at 188; FEC v. Nat’l Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 210 (1982) (“Nor will we\\nsecond guess a legislative determination as to the need for prophylactic measures where\\ncorruption is the evil feared.”).\\n\\n Kentucky also demonstrated how the regular session contribution ban, created by the\\n2014 amendments, furthers this anticorruption interest. The risk of corruption stemming from\\ncontributions by employers of lobbyists or PACs during a regular session of the legislature “is\\ncommon sense and far from illusory.” Ognibene, 671 F.3d at 187; Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 715–16\\n(upholding prohibition on in-session lobbyist and PAC contributions); Kimbell v. Hooper, 665\\nA.2d 44, 51 (Vt. 1995) (upholding in-session contribution ban and noting that the measure\\n“avoid[ed] a serious appearance of impropriety”). The regular session runs, at most, from early\\nJanuary to March 30th (in odd-numbered years) or April 15th (in even-numbered years).\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nKy. Const. §§ 36, 42. Stifling direct contributions from two of the most powerful players in the\\npolitical arena during these three or so months undoubtedly furthers Kentucky’s interest in\\npreventing the appearance of corruption. See N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274, 291\\n(4th Cir. 2008) (“Direct contributions to political candidates run the greatest risk of making\\ncandidates ‘too compliant with the wishes of large’ donors.” (quoting Shrink, 528 U.S. at 389)).\\n\\n In the years since the Code’s enactment, history confirms that contributions from\\nlobbyists, their employers, and PACs, as well as gifts from lobbyists, suggest quid pro quo\\ncorruption or its appearance. Ky. Right to Life, Inc. v. Terry, 108 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1997)\\n(“Numerous Kentucky public officials have been convicted of abusing their political offices for\\npersonal gain over the past twenty-five years.”); Preston, 660 F.3d at 737 (“We also conclude\\nthat in aiming the ban at only lobbyists, who, experience has taught, are especially susceptible to\\npolitical corruption, North Carolina closely drew its enactment to serve the state interests it\\nidentified.”); Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 716 (“The appearance of corruption resulting from PAC and\\nlobbyist contributions during the legislative session can also be corrosive.”).\\n\\n Further, if lobbyists’ employers and PACs were “free to contribute to legislators while\\npet projects sit before them, the temptation to exchange ‘dollars for political favors’ [would] be\\npowerful.” Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 716 (citation omitted). Even though PACs and lobbyists’\\nemployers may “have no intention of directly ‘purchasing’ favorable treatment, appearances may\\nbe otherwise.” Id. Where “the conflict of interest is apparent [and] the likelihood of stealth\\ngreat,” Blount v. SEC, 61 F.3d 938, 945 (D.C. Cir. 1995), we will not require Kentucky to\\n“experience the very problem it fears before taking appropriate prophylactic measures,”\\nOgnibene, 671 F.3d at 188.\\n\\n As for the removal of the de minimis exception from the gift ban, we note that the\\nCommonwealth enacted this exception at the same time as the contribution limit—in the\\nimmediate aftermath of the BOPTROT scandal. Removing the exception simply changed the\\nlimit on gifts from $100 to $0. Kentucky’s choice to reduce the limit to $0, we think, “goes to\\nwhether the limit is sufficiently tailored, not whether [Kentucky] had a sufficiently important\\ninterest to justify setting any [gift] limit at all.” Zimmerman v. City of Austin, 881 F.3d 378, 386\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\n(5th Cir. 2018). But even if we required a showing that its decision to remove this exception\\nfurthers its anticorruption interest, Kentucky has done so.\\n\\n As KLEC’s representative explained, removing the de minimis exception—and the\\nadministrative blunders that accompanied it—helps prevent the appearance of corruption. To be\\nsure, KLEC’s representative admitted that the de minimis exception “had not developed into an\\nethics problem,” but that it was an “administrative” and “public perception” problem. R. 47-1,\\nPageID 881–82. Administering the exception led to “incorrect reports that include[d] legislators\\nwho didn’t even attend events or didn’t eat or drink at the events but they’re getting their name\\npublicized.” Id. at PageID 883. Faced with this issue, the legislature decided to entirely close\\nthis “loophole in the law” by “paint[ing] a brighter line for the General Assembly and the public\\nto know that legislators are not taking anything of value.” Id. at PageID 826–27.\\n\\n Kentucky is not an outlier. Both before the district court and on appeal, Kentucky cited\\nthe laws and experiences of other states to justify the removal of the de minimis exception. See\\nWagner v. FEC, 793 F.3d 1, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (noting the relevance of the\\n“experience of states with and without similar laws” to this inquiry). The Commonwealth took\\nthis action after KLEC recommended it, grounding the recommendation on its research of\\ngovernmental ethics issues, a task assigned to it by statute. See § 6.666(15). Its research yielded\\nplentiful and detailed newspaper accounts from across the country “supporting inferences of\\nimpropriety” arising from gifts of value, Shrink, 528 U.S. at 393, including several that discussed\\nhow lobbyists and their employers skirted de minimis exceptions with tickets to sporting events,\\nrounds of golf, and cigars. R. 64-5, PageID 3361. In addition to its recommendation, KLEC\\ncompiled these news articles into Ethics Reporters, which it disseminated monthly to all\\nlegislators, lobbyists, and employers of lobbyists. R. 64-5, PageID 3354–67.1\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1The legislators cross-appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to strike these newsletters, arguing\\nthat the clips of several newspaper articles within them constitutes “inadmissible hearsay and was unauthenticated.”\\nBut because the newsletters were authenticated, see R. 82, PageID 4163–64, and plainly not offered for the truth of\\nthe matter asserted, they are not hearsay. See Biegas v. Quickway Carriers, Inc., 573 F.3d 365, 379 (6th Cir. 2009).\\nRather, they were offered as evidence of what was before the legislature at the time, and for their effect on KLEC’s\\nrecommendation to the legislature.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n And just as in Wagner, further evidence comes from other states enacting their own gift\\nbans that do not have de minimis exceptions. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. § 112.313(2); Haw. Rev.\\nStat. Ann. § 84-11; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 10A.071(2); S.C. Code Ann. § 2-17-80(A); Vt. Stat. Ann.\\ntit. 2, §§ 261(6)(a), 266(a)(2); Wisc. Stat. Ann. §§ 19.42, 19.45, 19.56(3). “The fact that many\\nstates have such laws shows that [Kentucky] is no outlier,” Wagner, 793 F.3d at 16, and that\\nother states believe gifts of value create a threat of corruption or its appearance.\\n\\n * * *\\n\\n Tellingly, perhaps, of the 138 members of the Kentucky General Assembly, only one\\nmember—the member who initiated this lawsuit—voted against the 2014 amendments\\nthat enacted the regular session ban and removed the de minimis exception.\\nKentucky Legislature, 2014 Regular Session Voting Record – HB 28,\\nhttps://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/14rs/hb28.html. Just as the overwhelming seventy-four-\\npercent statewide vote in favor of the contribution limits in Shrink helped demonstrate the state’s\\ninterest, 528 U.S. at 394, so too this landslide vote. Had the legislators made a showing of their\\nown to cast doubt on the evidence presented here, Kentucky might have needed to show more.\\nId. But on this record, Kentucky adequately illustrated that these ethics provisions further the\\nsufficiently important interest of preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.\\n\\n 2. Are the challenged provisions closely drawn?\\n\\n To clear the second hurdle of the closely drawn test, a state must show it employed\\n“means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms.”\\nMcCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 197 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25). This requires “a fit that is not\\nnecessarily perfect, but reasonable; that represents not necessarily the single best disposition but\\none whose scope is ‘in proportion to the interest served,’ . . . that employs not necessarily the\\nleast restrictive means but . . . a means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.” Id. at\\n218 (quoting Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480 (1989)). In conducting\\nsuch review, of course, we owe “proper deference to a [legislative] determination of the need for\\na prophylactic rule [to address] the evil of potential corruption.” Nat’l Conservative Political\\nAction Comm., 470 U.S. at 500; Nat’l Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. at 210.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\n Contribution Ban. This provision prohibits a legislator from accepting a campaign\\ncontribution from a lobbyist. § 6.767(2). Not long ago, the Fourth Circuit applied closely drawn\\nscrutiny and upheld a complete ban on campaign contributions by lobbyists. Preston, 660 F.3d\\nat 729, 735–36. There, plaintiff argued that the provision was not closely drawn because the\\nstate “could have allowed for . . . small donations . . . without undermining its interest in\\npreventing actual and perceived corruption.” Id. at 736. The court rejected this argument,\\nreasoning that, in response to recent scandals, the legislature made the “rational judgment that a\\ncomplete ban was necessary as a prophylactic to prevent not only actual corruption but also [its]\\nappearance.” Id. The court also emphasized that the ban aimed only at lobbyists “who,\\nexperience has taught, are especially susceptible to political corruption.” Id. at 737. “This is\\nboth an important and a legitimate legislative judgment that ‘[c]ourts simply are not in the\\nposition to second-guess,’ especially ‘where corruption is the evil feared.’” Id. at 736 (citation\\nomitted).\\n\\n The Fourth Circuit’s reasoning persuades us. Lobbyists’ role undoubtedly sharpens the\\nrisk of corruption and its appearance. See Wagner, 793 F.3d at 22; see Eric Lipton & Ben\\nProtess, Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills, N.Y. Times, May 23, 2013. To be\\nsure, “[t]he role of a lobbyist is both legitimate and important to legislation and government\\ndecisionmaking, but by its very nature, it is prone to corruption and therefore especially\\nsusceptible to public suspicion of corruption.” Preston, 660 F.3d at 737. Indeed, contributions\\nand gifts from lobbyists and others who have a “particularly direct financial interest in these\\nofficials’ policy decisions pose a heightened risk of actual and apparent corruption, and merit\\nheightened government regulation.” Ognibene, 671 F.3d at 188; see Preston, 660 F.3d at 737\\n(“Any payment made by a lobbyist to a public official, whether a campaign contribution or\\nsimply a gift, calls into question the propriety of the relationship, and therefore North Carolina\\ncould rationally adjudge that it should ban all payments.”).\\n\\n We find no merit to the legislators’ argument that only recent scandals justify a\\ncontribution ban. Courts do not require a recent scandal; indeed, the Supreme Court views\\ncontribution limits as preventative measures. Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 356 (noting the\\npreventative nature of direct contribution restrictions because “the scope of such pernicious\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\npractices can never be reliably ascertained”). We do not require Kentucky “to experience the\\nvery problem it fears before taking appropriate prophylactic measures.” Ognibene, 671 F.3d at\\n188.\\n\\n Yes, a total ban presents a significant restriction. But under the closely drawn standard,\\n“[e]ven a ‘significant interference with protected rights’ of political association may be\\nsustained.” McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 197 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While\\nthis ban dispenses with one means a legislator has to gather funds, it leaves open others less\\nsusceptible to the same risk of corruption or its appearance, and thus survives closely drawn\\nscrutiny. See Preston, 660 F.3d at 734 (finding that the ban “serv[ed] only as a channeling\\ndevice, cutting off the avenue of association and expression that is most likely to lead to\\ncorruption but allowing numerous other avenues of association and expression”).\\n\\n Regular Session Contribution Ban. This provision broadens the reach of the contribution\\nban; it prohibits a legislator from accepting campaign contributions from employers of lobbyists\\nand PACs, though only during a regular legislative session. § 6.767(3). The district court upheld\\nthe ban, relying primarily on two cases. See Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 715–16 (finding a nearly\\nidentical ban closely drawn because it applied to only two of the “most ubiquitous and powerful\\nplayers in the political arena,” and did “nothing more than place a temporary hold” on the ability\\nto contribute during the time when the risk of corruption is highest); Kimbell, 665 A.2d at 51\\n(finding a ban on contributions by lobbyists during active legislative sessions closely drawn\\nbecause it focused on “a narrow period during which legislators could be, or could appear to be,\\npressured, coerced, or tempted into voting on the basis of cash contributions”). We agree.\\n\\n First, this time-specific ban restricts less than would an absolute ban, Lavin, 689 F.3d at\\n548, and targets the time when the risk of quid pro quo corruption—especially its appearance—is\\nhighest, Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 716. Indeed, contributions to a legislator (or his challenger) when a\\nlegislator is poised to cast a favorable (or unfavorable) vote on a pet bill could cause Kentuckians\\nto question whether the contribution motivated the vote. See id. (“[T]he temptation to exchange\\n‘dollars for political favors’ can be powerful.”). For that reason, we assess this limited ban as\\npermissible. As the Supreme Court emphasized, “the danger of corruption and the appearance of\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\ncorruption apply with equal force to challengers and to incumbents,” justifying “imposing the\\nsame fundraising constraints upon both.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 33 (emphasis added).\\n\\n In addition to the time limitation, the Commonwealth limited the coverage of this ban to\\ntwo of the “most ubiquitous and powerful players in the political arena.” Bartlett, 168 F.3d at\\n716. Though these players can significantly inform the legislative process, “there remain\\npowerful hydraulic pressures at play [that] can cause both legislators and lobbyists to cross the\\nline.” Id. The legislators take issue with the scope of this ban, arguing that it covers “[e]ach and\\nevery PAC,” not just those that employ lobbyists, as was the case in Bartlett. 168 F.3d at 714.\\nBut Kentucky similarly limited the definition of what constitutes a PAC. As we noted over\\ntwenty years ago, the Kentucky General Assembly “explicitly narrow[ed] the definition of\\n‘permanent committee’ to encompass only those organizations which expressly advocate the\\nelection or defeat of clearly identified candidate(s).” Terry, 108 F.3d at 643; see Ky. Rev. Stat.\\nAnn. § 121.015(3)(d).\\n\\n The level of scandal uncovered by Operation BOPTROT, as well as the experiences of\\nother states, provides more than “scant evidence” that lobbyists sometimes turn to employers and\\nPACs to achieve their ends. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 232, overruled on other grounds by Citizens\\nUnited, 558 U.S. 310. Indeed, if we upheld the absolute ban on lobbyist contributions but struck\\ndown this restriction, we would be inviting the very circumvention proscribed by this provision.\\nSee Leake, 525 F.3d at 292. Because this provision “does nothing more than recognize that\\nlobbyists”—and their employers and narrowly-defined PACs—“are paid to persuade legislators,\\nnot to purchase them,” Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 718, and that contributions made by these power\\nplayers during an active session are particularly likely to give rise to the appearance of\\ncorruption, we find this time-limited ban closely drawn.\\n\\n Gift Ban. The gift ban provision prohibits a legislator or his spouse from soliciting,\\naccepting, or agreeing to accept “anything of value” from a lobbyist or his employer. § 6.751(2).\\nWe again see no constitutional problem here. The gift ban does not prevent lobbyists and\\nlegislators from meeting to discuss pressing issues facing Kentuckians. To be sure, it does not\\nforbid any interaction or the utterance of any word between the two. They may associate as\\noften as they wish over a cup of coffee or dinner or baseball game. This law simply requires\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\nthat, if they do, legislators pay their own way. A fair, reasonable way of preventing quid pro quo\\ncorruption and its appearance. Appellant Br. at 31 (noting that legislators receive a $154 per\\ndiem from taxpayer funds during the session for precisely this purpose).\\n\\n In addition, we reject the legislators’ argument that permitting events where all legislators\\nare invited and not requiring reporting of who attended such events makes these provisions\\nunderinclusive. See § 6.611(2)(b)(8); Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656, 1670\\n(2015) (“Underinclusivity creates a First Amendment concern when the State regulates one\\naspect of a problem while declining to regulate a different aspect of the problem that affects its\\nstated interest in a comparable way.”). This exception permits associations and facilitates\\nspeech between lobbyists and legislators without undercutting Kentucky’s stated interest or\\nabridging associational freedoms. Through this carve out, Kentucky encourages interactions that\\nare less likely to raise concerns about actual or apparent corruption. R. 47-1, PageID 785\\n(“[I] think they focused on events to which bipartisan, bicameral groups of legislators were\\ninvited . . . , [which are] much less problematic than a one-on-one dinner . . . where a lobbyist\\npays all the tab and gets that kind of one-on-one time.”). Thus, this provision survives closely\\ndrawn review.\\n\\n Having found these provisions closely drawn, we turn to examine the legislators’ other\\narguments for striking down the gift ban—that it is content based, a violation of their right to\\nequal protection, vague, and overbroad. As to each, we disagree.\\n\\n D. Content-Based Restriction on Speech\\n\\n The legislators argue that the gift ban provision is a content-based restriction because it\\n“targets gifts based on the identity of the giver.” Appellee Br. at 32. But speaker-based bans are\\nnot automatically content based or content neutral. Rather, because “[s]peech restrictions based\\non the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content,” Citizens\\nUnited, 558 U.S. at 340, such laws “demand strict scrutiny when the legislature’s speaker\\npreference reflects a content preference,” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2230 (2015)\\n(quoting Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 658 (1994)); see Nat’l Inst. of Family\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\n& Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2378 (2018). To make this determination, we\\nfollow the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Reed. 135 S. Ct. at 2230.2\\n\\n A law reflects a content preference when it cannot be “justified without reference to the\\ncontent of the regulated speech” or was “adopted by the government ‘because of disagreement\\nwith the message [the speech] conveys.’” Id. at 2227 (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism,\\n491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)). In making this determination, “[t]he government’s purpose is the\\ncontrolling consideration.” Ward, 491 U.S. at 791. “[A] regulation that serves purposes\\nunrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on\\nsome speakers or messages but not others.” See McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 480 (2014)\\n(quoting Ward, 491 U.S. at 791). The gift ban provision passes this test.\\n\\n Again, Kentucky’s purpose was clear: To protect the integrity of the legislative process\\nand avoid the reality or appearance that state legislation was being bought and sold. § 6.606.\\nSuch a purpose reflects a preference for a state legislature that maintains the trust of its citizens,\\nnot for the expression of certain content. See McCullen, 573 U.S. at 480. Nor have the\\nlegislators offered any evidence that the provision was adopted by Kentucky “because of\\ndisagreement with the message [the speech] conveys.” Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2227. It applies to\\ngifts that are “pecuniary or compensatory in value,” regardless of whether they convey any\\nmessage at all.\\n\\n In Reed, the Court discussed speaker-based bans and explained that a law limiting the\\ncontent of newspapers—and only newspapers—could not avoid strict scrutiny “simply because it\\ncould be characterized as speaker based.” 135 S. Ct. at 2230. So too, a “content-based law that\\nrestricted the political speech of all corporations would not become content neutral just because\\nit singled out corporations as a class of speakers.” Id. (citing Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 340–\\n41). Reed, at bottom, teaches us to be wary of speaker-based restrictions that are nothing more\\nthan content-based restrictions in disguise. And wary we are. Kentucky’s gift ban provision,\\n\\n\\n\\n 2Normally, the “first step in the content-neutrality analysis” requires us to determine “whether the law is\\ncontent neutral on its face.” Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2228. Nowhere, however, do the legislators argue that this\\nprovision is facially content based.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\nhowever, serves an anticorruption purpose unrelated to the content of expression and is justified\\nwithout any reference to the content of the gifts regulated. See Ward, 491 U.S. at 791.\\n\\n Since the gift ban provision is content neutral, it is “subject to an intermediate level of\\nscrutiny.” Turner, 512 U.S. at 642. Thus, just as the other First Amendment challenges here, we\\napply closely drawn scrutiny. See Zimmerman, 881 F.3d at 384–85 (rejecting argument that base\\ncontribution limit was content based and applying closely drawn scrutiny). Again, the\\nCommonwealth has demonstrated that the gift ban advances its anticorruption interest and\\nemploys means closely drawn to do so, and therefore survives closely drawn review.\\n\\n E. Equal Protection\\n\\n The district court found that the gift ban violated lobbyists’ right to equal protection\\nbecause “[e]ven though lobbyists and their employers are not part of a suspect class, a law that\\ntreats them differently from other citizens is subject to the highest level of scrutiny when it seeks\\nto suppress their political expression.” R. 122, PageID 4642. It got there by relying on the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), where\\nthe Court held that “[b]ecause the right to engage in political expression is fundamental to our\\nconstitutional system, statutory classifications impinging upon that right must be narrowly\\ntailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.” Id. at 666, overruled on other grounds by\\nCitizens United, 558 U.S. 310.\\n\\n In Citizens United, the Court overruled Austin on the question of whether the government\\nmay, under the First Amendment, suppress political speech “based on the corporate identity of\\nthe speaker.” 558 U.S. at 364. But the Court did not express an intent to overturn Austin’s\\nholding regarding the level of scrutiny applied to political expression, so it remains good law.\\nSee Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864, 879–80 (8th Cir. 2012)\\n(en banc) (explaining that Citizens United did not explicitly overrule the equal protection\\nanalysis in Austin); Riddle v. Hickenlooper, 742 F.3d 922, 928 n.4 (10th Cir. 2014) (same). That\\nsaid, several of our sister circuits express doubt as to whether Austin demands strict scrutiny in\\ncases involving equal protection challenges to contribution limits.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\n The D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, found Austin distinguishable and declined to follow it.\\nWagner, 793 F.3d at 32. It held that closely drawn scrutiny applied to an equal protection\\nchallenge to a contractor contribution ban, rejecting the “doctrinal gambit” that “would require\\nstrict scrutiny notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s determination that the ‘closely drawn’\\nstandard is the appropriate one under the First Amendment.” Id. It noted that, although the\\nSupreme Court “has on occasion applied strict scrutiny in examining equal protection challenges\\nin cases involving First Amendment rights, it has done so only when a First Amendment analysis\\nwould itself have required such scrutiny.” Id. Such was the case in Austin, where the Court\\napplied strict scrutiny to determine whether restrictions on independent expenditures by\\ncorporations passed muster under the equal protection clause. Austin, 494 U.S. at 655–56. To be\\nsure, the plaintiffs in Wagner could find “no case in any court ‘in which an equal-protection\\nchallenge to contribution limits succeeded where a First Amendment one did not.’” Wagner,\\n793 F.3d at 32–33 (citation omitted).\\n\\n In Riddle, although the Tenth Circuit applied the closely drawn test to an equal protection\\nchallenge to contribution limits that treated candidates differently if they were unopposed for\\ntheir nominations only “[f]or the sake of argument,” the court recognized that, in the First\\nAmendment context, the Supreme Court has applied closely drawn scrutiny to contribution\\nlimits. Riddle, 742 F.3d at 927–28. In his concurrence, then-Judge Gorsuch noted that “the\\nCourt has yet to apply strict scrutiny to contribution limit challenges—employing [closely drawn\\nscrutiny] instead,” and questioned whether “an interest [can] become more potent (‘more’\\nfundamental) when viewed through the lens of equal protection analysis?” Id. at 931 (Gorsuch,\\nJ., concurring).\\n\\n The Second Circuit too summarily rejected an equal protection challenge to a\\ncontribution limit where it already had held that the limit did not constitute viewpoint\\ndiscrimination under the First Amendment. Ognibene, 671 F.3d at 193 n.19. And in rejecting\\nthe same sort of challenge, one district court stated that it was not surprising such arguments had\\nfailed because the Supreme Court’s precedent “hold[s] that it makes no difference whether a\\nchallenge to the disparate treatment of speakers or speech is framed under the First Amendment\\nor the Equal Protection Clause.” Illinois Liberty PAC v. Madigan, 902 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1126\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\n(N.D. Ill. 2012) (collecting Supreme Court cases); see City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.,\\n475 U.S. 41, 55 n.4 (1986) (“As should be apparent from our preceding discussion, respondents\\ncan fare no better under the Equal Protection Clause than under the First Amendment itself.”).\\n\\n As for this circuit, we’ve not yet considered the level of scrutiny to apply. From our\\nreview of other circuits’ precedent, however, we agree that the best reading of Austin, especially\\nconsidering the scope of its application, confines its holding to cases in which the First\\nAmendment analysis itself requires strict scrutiny. See Wagner, 793 F.3d at 32. We have found\\nno case where the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny in examining an equal protection\\nchallenge when the First Amendment analysis itself did not require such scrutiny, see id., and\\njust as our sister circuits, we decline to be the first. Thus, we hold that closely drawn scrutiny,\\nthe tier of scrutiny applied to the First Amendment challenge, also applies to the equal protection\\nchallenge. The gift ban withstands such scrutiny.\\n\\n F. Vagueness\\n\\n To succeed on a vagueness challenge, a plaintiff must show either that the law (1) “fails\\nto provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it\\nprohibits”; or (2) “authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”\\nJohnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2566 (2015). For laws that interfere with the right of\\nfree speech or association, “a more stringent vagueness test should apply.” Platt v. Bd. of\\nComm’rs on Grievances & Discipline of Ohio Supreme Court, 894 F.3d 235, 246 (6th Cir.\\n2018). But we do not require “perfect clarity and precise guidance.” Holder v. Humanitarian\\nLaw Project, 561 U.S. 1, 19 (2010). On appeal, plaintiffs challenge only “the vague so called\\n‘catchall’ provision”—§ 6.611(2)(a)(14), not the entire definition of “anything of value” in\\n§ 6.611(2)(a).\\n\\n Fair Notice. When determining whether a law provides fair notice, “in the absence of\\nstate court guidance, we examine ‘the words of the ordinance itself.’” Platt, 894 F.3d at 246\\n(quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 110 (1972)). The catch-all provision reads:\\n“[a]ny other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a person, or the primary\\nsignificance of which is economic gain.” § 6.811(2)(a)(14). A common dictionary defines\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\n“value” as “the monetary worth of something,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary\\nUnabridged 2530 (2002), and “pecuniary” nearly the same, id. at 1663. And “compensatory” is\\ndefined as “serving as compensation,” with “compensation” defined as “the act or action of\\nmaking up, making good, or counterbalancing,” or “payment for value received or service\\nrendered.” Id. at 463.\\n\\n No vagueness plagues any of these terms. Laws marked by “flexibility and reasonable\\nbreadth, rather than meticulous specificity,” are not inevitably vague, see Platt, 894 F.3d at 246–\\n47, and we do not require—or expect—“mathematical certainty from our language.” Grayned,\\n408 U.S. at 110. A person of ordinary intelligence would know that this language—used in both\\nlegal and common parlance—bars them from accepting or soliciting money or a gift that serves\\nas payment for a service provided. See Platt, 894 F.3d at 247. And the additional phrase “or the\\nprimary significance of which is economic gain” does not muddy the waters.\\n\\n Here, though the catch-all provision is marked by flexibility and reasonable breadth, we\\nthink “it is clear what the ordinance as a whole prohibits.” Deja Vu of Cincinnati, L.L.C. v.\\nUnion Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 411 F.3d 777, 798 (6th Cir. 2005). Even if these “words leave some\\nwiggle room,” Platt, 894 F.3d at 247, the Ethics Code provides multiple mechanisms to\\ndetermine whether the gift is permissible. See § 6.827(1) (requiring lobbyists and their\\nemployers to deliver a copy of reported expenditures to the legislator at least ten days before\\nfiling a report with KLEC); see § 6.827(2) (providing procedure for resolving any discrepancies\\nin report). Most importantly, § 6.681 allows a legislator or lobbyist to seek an advisory opinion\\nto clarify any ambiguities, admittedly not done here. See Platt, 894 F.3d at 247.\\n\\n Nor do KLEC’s representative’s answers to hypotheticals posed in interrogatories\\ndemonstrate vagueness here. Id. at 249–50. “Hypotheticals are a favorite tool of those bringing\\nvagueness challenges,” as almost all statutes are “susceptible to clever hypotheticals testing its\\nreach.” Id. at 251. The district court and the legislators seized on one exchange where KLEC’s\\nrepresentative suggested that “a bottle of water” offered during a meeting to discuss a pending\\nbill could be a “possible” thing of value that would violate the ban, and that the legislator could\\n“call [him] and ask [him] if he should accept under the circumstances.” R. 47-1, PageID 668–71.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\n Just as in Platt, “[s]pecific facts matter,” and it would have been irresponsible of the\\nrepresentative to respond definitively. See 894 F.3d at 248. Though a bottle of water does not\\nimmediately come to mind when one reads the catch-all provision (and the rest of § 6.611(2)(a)-\\n(b)), it could possibly fall under the provision based on the surrounding circumstances.\\nResponding, then, as here, that the situation would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by\\nlooking at the surrounding circumstances shows prudence, not vagueness. See id. at 251.\\n\\n The legislators offered another example to show vagueness. An employer of a lobbyist\\ninvited Senator Schickel to tour a factory, but he “declined due to a legitimate fear that being lent\\na hard hat to tour the facility, being subjected to heat for the building, or stopping to use the\\nrestroom facilities in the factory during the tour could run afoul” of this rule. Appellee Br. at 44.\\nBut this is a specious argument considering the detailed lists including, § 6.611(2)(a), and\\nexcluding, § 6.611(2)(b), items from “anything of value.” The catch-all provision’s plain\\nlanguage and the means to resolve questions about its coverage, including advisory opinions,\\nprovide fair notice of the conduct it prohibits.\\n\\n Arbitrary Enforcement. To determine whether a statute creates opportunities for arbitrary\\nenforcement, we ask whether the catch-all provision “provide[s] explicit standards guiding [its]\\nenforcement.” United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Sw. Ohio Reg’l\\nTransit Auth., 163 F.3d 341, 359 (6th Cir. 1998). Just as in challenges to similarly-worded gift\\nbans on lobbyists and others, we hold that explicit standards guide the enforcement of this\\nprovision. See Fla. Ass’n, 525 F.3d at 1075 n.1 (upholding lobbyist gift ban that defined\\n“expenditure” as “a payment, distribution, loan, advance, reimbursement, deposit, or anything of\\nvalue made by a lobbyist or principal for the purpose of lobbying”); Kimbell, 665 A.2d at 82 n.1\\n(“anything else of value”); see also Yamada v. Snipes, 786 F.3d 1182, 1188–89 (9th Cir. 2015)\\n(rejecting vagueness challenge to “expenditure” definition that included “anything of value”); Vt.\\nRight to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 758 F.3d 118, 130 (2d Cir. 2014) (same). In fact, the\\nstatutes in Florida Association and Kimbell provided far fewer examples of what the term\\n“expenditure” did and did not include—nothing close to the twenty-five-plus subparts here. See\\nFla. Stat. Ann. §§ 11.045(1)(c), 112.3215(1)(d); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, § 261(5).\\n\\n We find the catch-all provision not void for vagueness.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 25\\n\\n\\n G. Overbreadth and Chilling Effect\\n\\n “A law is overbroad under the First Amendment if it ‘reaches a substantial number of\\nimpermissible applications’ relative to the law’s legitimate sweep.” East Brooks Books, Inc. v.\\nShelby Cty., 588 F.3d 360, 366 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). A plaintiff making an\\noverbroad challenge may not “leverag[e] a few alleged unconstitutional applications of the\\nstatute into a ruling invalidating the law in all of its applications.” Speet v. Schuette, 726 F.3d\\n867, 878 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Connection Distrib. Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321, 340 (6th Cir.\\n2009) (en banc)). Rather, a plaintiff “must demonstrate from the text of the statute and from\\nactual fact that a substantial number of instances exist in which the law cannot be applied\\nconstitutionally.” Id.\\n\\n Much of our analysis here overlaps with our vagueness analysis. In finding the law\\noverbroad, the district court once again relied on the same hypotheticals discussed previously.\\nBut, again, this provision does not sweep so broadly. As before, plaintiffs provide no evidence\\nof any person who has ever been charged with violating this provision for (i) receiving a bottle of\\nwater; (ii) walking into a heated or cooled room; or even (iii) using the restroom in a lobbyist’s\\noffice. Indeed, KLEC has never interpreted these “gifts” as “[some]thing of value” to be\\n“reported, limited, or prohibited.” In the unlikely event that KLEC ever charges anyone for (or\\nthreatens enforcement of) such conduct, an as-applied challenge would be appropriate.\\n\\n We agree with the Commonwealth’s argument that “[t]he gift ban . . . prevent[s]\\nlobbyists from paying for one-on-one or small group interactions with legislators, to avoid the\\nreality or appearance that important state legislation is being bought and sold in private.”\\nAppellant Br. at 31–32. Even in First Amendment cases, facial invalidation is “strong medicine\\nthat is not to be casually employed.” Connection Distrib., 557 F.3d at 336 (quoting United\\nStates v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 293 (2008)). Given the plainly legitimate sweep of these\\nprovisions to sports tickets, cars, wine, vacations, and art, the gift ban is not overbroad.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 26\\n\\n\\n V. CONCLUSION\\n\\n Kentucky’s legislature acted to protect itself and its citizens from the damaging effects of\\ncorruption. Because these laws are closely drawn to further Kentucky’s anticorruption interest,\\nthey pass constitutional muster. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the court’s judgment upholding the\\nconstitutionality of § 6.767(3), and the dismissal of § 121.150(13) on standing grounds. We\\nVACATE the district court’s judgment as to § 6.811(4), § 6.811(5), § 6.811(6), and § 6.811(7),\\nand REMAND with instructions to dismiss those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.\\nWe REVERSE the court’s judgment as to § 6.751(2) and § 6.767(2), VACATE the permanent\\ninjunction in its entirety, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4402103/\", \"author_raw\": \"COOK, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MERRITT"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"COOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"LARSEN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624850/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: John SCHICKEL, in His Personal and Official Capacities; David Watson, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Ken Moellman, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig C. DILGER, in His Official Capacity as Chair and Member, Kentucky Registry of Election Finance ; Rosemary F. Center; Terry Naydan; Reid Haire; Robert D. Mattingley; Chastity Ross; Thomas B. Stephens ; John R. Steffen, Defendants-Appellees, George C. Troutman, in His Official Capacity as Chairman and Member of the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission ; Elmer George; Pat Freibert; Tony Goetz; Ken Winters ; Tom Jensen; Sheldon Baugh ; Phil Huddleston; Anthony M. Wilhoit; H. John Schaaf, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-30\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0110p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nJOHN SCHICKEL, in his Personal and Official ┐\nCapacities; DAVID WATSON, │\n Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, │\n │\n │\nKEN MOELLMAN, JR., │\n Plaintiff-Appellee, > Nos. 17-6456/6505\n │\n │\n v. │\n │\nCRAIG C. DILGER, in his Official Capacity as Chair │\nand Member, Kentucky Registry of Election Finance; │\nROSEMARY F. CENTER; TERRY NAYDAN; REID HAIRE; │\nROBERT D. MATTINGLEY; CHASTITY ROSS; THOMAS B. │\nSTEPHENS; JOHN R. STEFFEN, │\n │\n │\n Defendants-Appellees, │\n │\nGEORGE C. TROUTMAN, in his Official Capacity as │\nChairman and Member of the Kentucky Legislative │\nEthics Commission; ELMER GEORGE; PAT FREIBART; │\nTONY GOETZ; KEN WINTERS; TOM JENSEN; SHELDON │\nBAUGH; PHIL HUDDLESTON; ANTHONY M. WILHOIT; H. │\nJOHN SCHAFF, │\n Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington.\n No. 2:15-cv-00155—William O. Bertelsman, District Judge.\n\n Argued: October 18, 2018\n\n Decided and Filed: May 30, 2019\n\n Before: MERRITT, COOK, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 2\n\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Andrew G. Beshear, OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL,\nFrankfort, Kentucky, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Christopher D. Wiest, CHRIS WIEST,\nATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Emily Dennis,\nKENTUCKY REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellees. ON\nBRIEF: Matt James, La Tasha Buckner, OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY\nGENERAL, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Thomas B. Bruns, BRUNS,\nCONNELL, VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, Robert A. Winter, Jr.,\nFORT MITCHELL, KENTUCKY, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Emily Dennis,\nKENTUCKY REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellees.\nBarbara B. Edelman, Haley Trogdlen McCauley, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, Lexington,\nKentucky, Tara Malloy, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n COOK, Circuit Judge. One sitting state senator and one prospective candidate for elected\noffice in Kentucky challenged several state campaign finance and ethics laws, claiming\nviolations of their First Amendment rights to free speech and association and Fourteenth\nAmendment right to equal protection. Kentucky argues that these measures, enacted to prevent\ncorruption and protect its citizens’ trust in their elected officials, comport with the Constitution.\nThe district court, for the most part, disagreed with the Commonwealth. We see it differently.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n John Schickel, the incumbent state senator for the 11th Senatorial District in Kentucky,\nand David Watson, who unsuccessfully ran for the 6th House District in 2016, brought this suit\nalleging that several of Kentucky’s campaign finance and ethics statutes violated their rights\nprotected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sued several members of Kentucky’s\nRegistry of Election Finance (KREF) and Legislative Ethics Commission (KLEC), agencies\ncharged with enforcing the campaign finance and ethics laws.\n\n This appeal challenges the now defunct campaign finance provision that restricted the\namount a candidate may loan to his campaign. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 121.150(13). As for the\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 3\n\n\nethics provisions, the legislators challenge seven of them. Of the seven, three groups of two\nmirroring provisions—one proscribing certain conduct by legislators and the corollary version\nfor lobbyists—impose:\n\n (1) a contribution ban, §§ 6.767(2) and 6.811(6), which prohibits a legislator,\n candidate for the legislature, or his or her campaign committee from accepting a\n campaign contribution from a lobbyist, and a lobbyist from making the same;\n (2) a regular session contribution ban, §§ 6.767(3) and 6.811(7), which\n prohibits a legislator, candidate for the legislature, or his or her campaign\n committee from accepting a campaign contribution from an employer of a\n lobbyist or a political committee (PAC) during a regular session of the General\n Assembly, and an employer of a lobbyist from making the same; and\n (3) a gift ban, §§ 6.751(2) and 6.811(4), which prohibits a legislator or his spouse\n from accepting “anything of value” from a lobbyist or his employer, and a\n lobbyist or employer of a lobbyist from knowingly offering the same to a\n legislator, candidate, or his family.\n\nThe final ethics provision applies only to lobbyists:\n\n (4) a solicitation/treasurer ban, § 6.811(5), which prohibits a lobbyist from\n (i) serving as a campaign treasurer, and (ii) directly soliciting, controlling, or\n delivering a campaign contribution to a legislator or candidate.\n\n The district court dismissed the campaign finance claim as moot because a legislative\namendment eliminated the provision. As for the ethics provisions, the court found that the laws\nburdened “core political speech” and curtailed freedom of association, requiring strict scrutiny of\nevery ethics provision except the regular session contribution ban. It ultimately upheld the\nregular session contribution ban, but found all the other challenged ethics provisions\nunconstitutional and unenforceable.\n\n Defendants then moved this court for a stay pending appeal, which we granted. The\nparties cross-appealed.\n\n II. CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROVISION\n\n We begin with the self-funding restriction, repealed in 2017 by the Kentucky legislature,\nwhich limited the amount a candidate could personally loan his own campaign. See\n§ 121.150(13) (repealed 2017). Though this court found the provision wholly unconstitutional in\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 4\n\n\nAnderson v. Spear, 356 F.3d 651, 673 (6th Cir. 2004), Schickel and Watson nevertheless worry\nthat KREF may yet enforce the statute.\n\n To establish standing under Article III, a plaintiff must show, among other things, an\n“injury in fact.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). In a pre-enforcement\nchallenge, such as here, a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement by alleging “an\nintention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but\nproscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.” Susan B.\nAnthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 159 (2014) (quoting Babbitt v. United Farm Workers\nNat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979)). “A threat of future enforcement may be ‘credible’ when\nthe same conduct has drawn enforcement actions or threats of enforcement in the past.” Kiser v.\nReitz, 765 F.3d 601, 609 (6th Cir. 2014).\n\n Here, the legislators have not shown a credible threat of prosecution. KREF has not\nenforced this provision since Anderson struck it down. Indeed, “if a statute is unconstitutional\non its face, the State may not enforce the statute under any circumstances.” Women’s Med.\nProf’l Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 193 (6th Cir. 1997). The legislators cite several alleged\nenforcements, but all involve other provisions—§§ 121.180 and 121.150(1), (6), (12), and (20)—\nnot this one. Cf. Russell v. Lundergan-Grimes, 784 F.3d 1037, 1049 (6th Cir. 2015) (history of\npast enforcement against others established injury in fact). Nor have the legislators shown that\nKREF has any intention to enforce this provision. At its 30(b)(6) deposition, in its motion for\nsummary judgment, and during oral argument before this panel, KREF explicitly disavowed\nenforcement against the legislators for any violations of this provision. The legislators’ case\ndoes not resemble those it cites to support its position.\n\n Thus, because there exists no credible threat of prosecution, the legislators lack standing\nto challenge this provision. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claim on standing\ngrounds.\n\n III. LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS\n\n Before addressing the merits, we consider whether the legislators have standing to assert\nchallenges to the four ethics provisions governing only the conduct of lobbyists. If the\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 5\n\n\nlegislators cannot establish constitutional standing, “their claims must be dismissed for lack of\nsubject matter jurisdiction.” Loren v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 505 F.3d 598, 607 (6th\nCir. 2007). Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing standing, and they must support each\nelement “in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof,\ni.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at successive stages of the litigation.” Fair\nElections Ohio v. Husted, 770 F.3d 456, 459 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561).\nThe legislators may not rely on mere allegations, but “must set forth by affidavit or other\nevidence specific facts” to show standing. McKay v. Federspiel, 823 F.3d 862, 867 (6th Cir.\n2016) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561).\n\n “[T]he nature and extent of facts that must be averred . . . to establish standing depends\nconsiderably upon whether the plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or forgone action) at\nissue.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. When he is, “there is ordinarily little question” that the plaintiff\nhas standing. Id. at 561–62. But when he is not—when his “asserted injury arises from the\ngovernment’s allegedly unlawful regulation . . . of someone else”—we require much more. Id. at\n562. In such circumstances, “causation and redressability ordinarily hinge on the response of the\nregulated (or regulable) third party to the government action or inaction.” Id.; ASARCO Inc. v.\nKadish, 490 U.S. 605, 615 (1989) (noting that plaintiff’s ability to satisfy the essential elements\nof standing “depends on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the courts\nand whose exercise of broad and legitimate discretion the courts cannot presume either to control\nor to predict”). The burden therefore falls on the plaintiff to present facts showing that the third\nparty’s “choices have been or will be made in such manner as to produce causation and permit\nredressability of injury.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 562. This does not preclude a showing of standing,\nbut it ordinarily makes it “‘substantially more difficult’ to establish.” Id. (citation omitted); see\nWarth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 504 (1975).\n\n The legislators face an uphill climb: they are not the object of the lobbying restrictions.\nBut the legislators can establish standing from the operation of these lobbying restrictions; that\nis, by showing that a restriction has been applied to a lobbyist, his employer, or a PAC—or\nimminently will be—and “ha[s] caused or will imminently cause” plaintiffs’ concrete injury. See\nTenn. Republican Party v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 863 F.3d 507, 520 (6th Cir. 2017). Here, the\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 6\n\n\nlegislators claim the operation of these statutes infringe their right to associate, “receive\ninformation,” and “receive[] contributions.” An individual’s right to associate, “broadly\ndefined” by the Supreme Court, includes “the ancillary right of the candidate to ‘amas[s] the\nresources necessary for effective advocacy.’” Frank v. City of Akron, 290 F.3d 813, 818 (6th\nCir. 2002) (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 396–97 (2000)). Thus, the\nlegislators could also prove injury by showing that the challenged laws “w[ere] so radical in\neffect as to render political association ineffective, drive the sound of a candidate’s voice below\nthe level of notice, and render contributions pointless.” Shrink, 528 U.S. at 397.\n\n Affidavits from Schickel and Watson do not establish an injury from the operation of the\ncontribution ban or regular session contribution ban. Even assuming a right to receive\ncontributions, compare Dean v. Blumenthal, 577 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[A]lthough\nRandall did not recognize a First Amendment right to receive campaign contributions, its\nanalysis did not foreclose such recognition.”), with Interpipe Contracting, Inc. v. Becerra, 898\nF.3d 879, 894 (9th Cir. 2018) (“But while the First Amendment protects the right of an\nindividual to express herself through the medium of finance, it does not establish a free-floating\nright to receive the funds necessary to broadcast one’s speech.”), the legislators have not shown\nthese restrictions have caused or imminently will cause them injury.\n\n Because they have not done so, “by affidavit or other evidence,” they lack standing to\nchallenge these lobbying restrictions. See McKay, 823 F.3d at 867. The legislators offer no\naffidavit from a lobbyist or his employer regarding these restrictions, and they fail to provide\nevidence that a specific lobbyist, his employer, or a PAC attempted to help in ways proscribed by\nthe provisions—e.g., serve as treasurer, solicit contributions, or make a contribution—but was\nturned away due to the lobbying restrictions. The lack of such evidence dooms their claims. See\nTenn. Republican Party, 863 F.3d at 517 (“[T]here is no reason why Petitioners could not have\nput forth an affidavit from a particular municipal advisor professional who would have\ncontributed more than $250 were it not for the 2016 Amendments.”); Lavin v. Husted, 689 F.3d\n543, 545–47 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding that Medicaid providers had standing to challenge a law\nthat did not punish them because they had “attempted to contribute” to a state Attorney General\ncandidate who “refused to accept their contributions, citing Ohio law”).\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 7\n\n\n Instead, Schickel and Watson offer their own affidavits, stating their belief that others\nwould like to violate the restrictions. Schickel asserted that, if not for the contribution\nrestrictions, he “would accept campaign donations[] from employers of lobbyists” and “from\ncertain registered lobbyists . . . whose values I share.” R. 65-2, Schickel Aff. ¶¶ 26, 27.\nMirroring Schickel’s affidavit, Watson averred that “I would, if not prohibited, accept donations\nfrom [two organizations], and would also accept, if not prohibited, donations on behalf of the\nlobbyists that lobby for them.” R. 65-3, Watson Aff. ¶ 37. But the assurance that both would\naccept such contributions means nothing in the absence of an affidavit or other evidence\nestablishing that such contributions were attempted or would be in the imminent future. See\nClapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 n.2)\n(“[I]mminence is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, [but] it cannot be stretched beyond its\npurpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III\npurposes—that the injury is certainly impending.”).\n\n As for the provision that bans gifts by lobbyists, the legislators’ statements fall short.\nBoth attested that, before this law’s enactment, they “would not hesitate to take a meeting at a\nlobbyist’s office.” R. 65-2, Schickel Aff. ¶ 29; R. 65-3, Watson Aff. ¶ 39. After the 2014\namendment removed the de minimis exception, however, both fear doing so, since “sitting in an\nair conditioned office” or “receiving a piece of paper to take notes” could be considered\n“something of value.” R. 65-2, Schickel Aff. ¶ 29; R. 65-3, Watson Aff. ¶ 39. But the\nlegislators cannot manufacture standing by “inflicting harm on themselves based on their fear of\nhypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” Clapper, 568 U.S. at 416. According\nto Schickel, he “used to take turns buying the soda or cup of coffee” with constituents and\nlobbyists but now does so with only constituents “given the rules in place,” R. 65-2, Schickel\nAff. ¶ 28, but this alleged injury hinges entirely “on the unfettered choices made” by lobbyists to\npurchase coffee for him, Kadish, 490 U.S. at 615. This statement offers little more than\nSchickel’s own guess as to why legislators have stopped purchasing coffee for him (perhaps they\nprefer the new status quo), and thus fails to adduce facts sufficient to show that the choice not to\nbuy him coffee can be fairly traced to this provision. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 567 (“Standing is\nnot ‘an ingenious academic exercise in the conceivable.’” (quoting United States v. Students\nChallenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 688 (1973))).\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 8\n\n\n The legislators’ affidavits also fall short on the solicitation/treasurer restriction. Each\nincludes just the lone statement referencing an injury: “[I] would like to have a legislative agent\nserve as my campaign treasurer, and I am aware of legislative agents that would like to solicit\nothers to make campaign donations to me, but cannot under the current legislative ethics\nscheme.” R. 65-2, Schickel Aff. ¶ 33; R. 65-3, Watson Aff. ¶ 42. This is not the proof needed at\nsummary judgment. Miyazawa v. City of Cincinnati, 45 F.3d 126, 127 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding\nat summary judgment stage that plaintiff lacked standing because she “merely asserted a general\ncomplaint that an unidentified candidate that she may want to vote for may not be eligible to run\nfor that office”).\n\n Last, we turn to the legislators’ suggestion that “receiving donations and giving of\ndonations are two sides of the same coin,” such that a party who has standing to challenge one\nhas standing to challenge the other. Appellee Br. at 59. But in the one case they cite for this\nproposition, the political committee and lobbyist acquired standing to challenge the restricting of\nsoliciting by legislators based on showing that the provision injured them rather than the\nlegislators or candidates. N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Bartlett, 168 F.3d 705, 710 (4th Cir. 1999).\n\n In the absence of specific evidence supporting standing to challenge the lobbying\nrestrictions, the legislators may not.\n\n IV. ETHICS PROVISIONS\n\n We now examine the legislators’ challenges to the constitutionality of the three ethics\nprovisions that target their own conduct: the contribution ban, regular session contribution ban,\nand gift ban.\n\n A. Standard of Review\n\n We review de novo a district court’s judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n56. Allied Constr. Indus. v. City of Cincinnati, 879 F.3d 215, 219 (6th Cir. 2018). Summary\njudgment may be entered only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the\nmovant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Where, as here, the\nparties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, “the court must evaluate each party’s motion\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 9\n\n\non its own merits, taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against the party\nwhose motion is under consideration.” McKay, 823 F.3d at 866 (citation omitted).\n\n B. Level of Scrutiny Applied\n\n The legislators argue that limiting their receiving contributions burdens political speech.\nBut contribution limits entail “only a marginal restriction upon the contributor’s ability to engage\nin free communication,” as they permit “the symbolic expression of support evidenced by a\ncontribution but do[] not in any way infringe the contributor’s freedom to discuss candidates and\nissues.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 20–21 (1976) (per curiam). As such, they are subject to\nclosely drawn scrutiny, a “lesser but still ‘rigorous standard of review.’” McCutcheon v. FEC,\n572 U.S. 185, 197 (2014) (plurality opinion) (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 29). And\ncontribution bans—such as those enacted here—receive the same treatment. FEC v. Beaumont,\n539 U.S. 146, 161–62 (2003) (expressly declining to apply strict scrutiny to a contribution ban).\n\n The same goes for the gift ban. See Preston v. Leake, 660 F.3d 726, 729–30 (4th Cir.\n2011) (upholding lobbyist contribution ban, which defined contributions to include gifts, under\nclosely drawn scrutiny). Restrictions on gift giving, like those on contributions, are marginal\nrestrictions that do not in any way hinder lobbyists’ or legislators’ ability to discuss candidates or\nissues. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 20–21. Indeed, if contribution restrictions “lie closer to the edges\nthan to the core of political expression,” Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 161, gifts of value hug the fringe.\nSee United States v. Ring, 706 F.3d 460, 466 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he First Amendment interest\nin giving hockey tickets to public officials is, at least compared to the interest in contributing to\npolitical campaigns, de minimis.”).\n\n C. Applying Closely Drawn Scrutiny\n\n Closely drawn scrutiny requires the Commonwealth to demonstrate that each provision\nfurthers “a sufficiently important interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary\nabridgement of associational freedoms.” McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 197 (quoting Buckley,\n424 U.S. at 25); see Lavin, 689 F.3d at 547.\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 10\n\n\n 1. Do the challenged provisions further a “sufficiently important” government interest?\n\n The Commonwealth asserts a familiar interest for the ethics provisions: the prevention of\nactual quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. See § 6.606. This interest has long been\nconsidered sufficiently important to justify regulating campaign contributions, and “may\nproperly be labeled ‘compelling,’ so that [it] would satisfy even strict scrutiny.” McCutcheon,\n572 U.S. at 199 (quoting FEC v. Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480, 496–\n97 (1985)). It follows that this focus on preventing corruption or its appearance would also\njustify Kentucky’s gift ban. See Fla. Ass’n of Prof’l Lobbyists, Inc. v. Div. of Legislative Info.\nServs. of the Fla. Office of Legislative Servs., 525 F.3d 1073, 1080–81 (11th Cir. 2008)\n(upholding lobbyist gift ban); Preston, 660 F.3d at 729. But having an undeniably important\ninterest is not enough; Kentucky must still “demonstrate how its [ethics provisions] further[]”\nthat interest. Lavin, 689 F.3d at 547.\n\n To do so, Kentucky must show only “a cognizable risk of corruption”—a “risk of quid\npro quo corruption or its appearance.” McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 210 (emphasis added); see\nCitizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 357 (2010) (noting that “restrictions on direct\ncontributions are preventative” and that the Buckley Court “sustained limits on direct\ncontributions in order to ensure against the reality or appearance of corruption”) (emphases\nadded). The threat of corruption must be more than “mere conjecture,” Shrink, 528 U.S. at 392,\nand cannot be “illusory,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 27. But a state need not produce evidence of\nactual instances of corruption. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 150 (2003), overruled in\npart on other grounds by Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 365–66; Lair v. Motl, 873 F.3d 1170, 1178\n(9th Cir. 2017); Ognibene v. Parkes, 671 F.3d 174, 183 (2d Cir. 2011) (“It is not necessary to\nproduce evidence of actual corruption to demonstrate the sufficiently important interest in\npreventing the appearance of corruption.”). Ultimately, “[t]he quantum of empirical evidence\nneeded . . . will vary up or down with the novelty and plausibility of the justification raised.”\nShrink, 528 U.S. at 391.\n\n The Commonwealth’s briefs describe a sordid history. In the wake of an infamous FBI\ninvestigation into public corruption in Kentucky that led to “the indictment and conviction of\nlegislators, former legislators, and lobbyists for criminal misconduct,” known as Operation\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 11\n\n\nBOPTROT, the state legislature enacted the Ethics Code. Assoc. Indus. of Ky. v.\nCommonwealth, 912 S.W.2d 947, 950 (Ky. 1995). In the aftermath of BOPTROT, the public\nlost faith in its elected officials, and public standing plunged to an all-time low. Tom Loftus &\nAl Cross, Lies, Bribes and Videotape, The Courier-Journal, July 1, 1993. Corruption was\nrampant and came cheap—in some cases, legislators accepted as little as $400 from lobbyists in\nexchange for influencing legislation. Id.; Martin Booe, Ethics: Kentuckians Amazed that $400\nCan Buy a Lawmaker, L.A. Times, April 13, 1993.\n\n Kentucky’s stated interest “[is] neither novel nor implausible.” Shrink, 528 U.S. at 391.\nThe contribution ban—enacted against this backdrop and untouched by the 2014 amendments—\nplainly furthers Kentucky’s anticorruption interest. Its own supreme court agreed, rejecting\nseveral constitutional challenges to the Code’s provisions by an employer of lobbyists and\nholding that the state demonstrated “a compelling interest in insuring the proper operation of a\ndemocratic government and deterring corruption, as well as the appearance of corruption.”\nAssoc. Indus., 912 S.W.2d at 953; see § 6.606.\n\n The legislators argue that Operation BOPTROT involved only the horse racing industry,\nand therefore cannot serve as the basis for restrictions on all lobbyists. Given that lobbyists were\ncaught up in BOPTROT, however, we find this argument specious. A state need not wait for the\nentanglement of every industry or every lobbyist in scandal before taking action. See Ognibene,\n671 F.3d at 188; FEC v. Nat’l Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 210 (1982) (“Nor will we\nsecond guess a legislative determination as to the need for prophylactic measures where\ncorruption is the evil feared.”).\n\n Kentucky also demonstrated how the regular session contribution ban, created by the\n2014 amendments, furthers this anticorruption interest. The risk of corruption stemming from\ncontributions by employers of lobbyists or PACs during a regular session of the legislature “is\ncommon sense and far from illusory.” Ognibene, 671 F.3d at 187; Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 715–16\n(upholding prohibition on in-session lobbyist and PAC contributions); Kimbell v. Hooper, 665\nA.2d 44, 51 (Vt. 1995) (upholding in-session contribution ban and noting that the measure\n“avoid[ed] a serious appearance of impropriety”). The regular session runs, at most, from early\nJanuary to March 30th (in odd-numbered years) or April 15th (in even-numbered years).\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 12\n\n\nKy. Const. §§ 36, 42. Stifling direct contributions from two of the most powerful players in the\npolitical arena during these three or so months undoubtedly furthers Kentucky’s interest in\npreventing the appearance of corruption. See N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274, 291\n(4th Cir. 2008) (“Direct contributions to political candidates run the greatest risk of making\ncandidates ‘too compliant with the wishes of large’ donors.” (quoting Shrink, 528 U.S. at 389)).\n\n In the years since the Code’s enactment, history confirms that contributions from\nlobbyists, their employers, and PACs, as well as gifts from lobbyists, suggest quid pro quo\ncorruption or its appearance. Ky. Right to Life, Inc. v. Terry, 108 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1997)\n(“Numerous Kentucky public officials have been convicted of abusing their political offices for\npersonal gain over the past twenty-five years.”); Preston, 660 F.3d at 737 (“We also conclude\nthat in aiming the ban at only lobbyists, who, experience has taught, are especially susceptible to\npolitical corruption, North Carolina closely drew its enactment to serve the state interests it\nidentified.”); Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 716 (“The appearance of corruption resulting from PAC and\nlobbyist contributions during the legislative session can also be corrosive.”).\n\n Further, if lobbyists’ employers and PACs were “free to contribute to legislators while\npet projects sit before them, the temptation to exchange ‘dollars for political favors’ [would] be\npowerful.” Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 716 (citation omitted). Even though PACs and lobbyists’\nemployers may “have no intention of directly ‘purchasing’ favorable treatment, appearances may\nbe otherwise.” Id. Where “the conflict of interest is apparent [and] the likelihood of stealth\ngreat,” Blount v. SEC, 61 F.3d 938, 945 (D.C. Cir. 1995), we will not require Kentucky to\n“experience the very problem it fears before taking appropriate prophylactic measures,”\nOgnibene, 671 F.3d at 188.\n\n As for the removal of the de minimis exception from the gift ban, we note that the\nCommonwealth enacted this exception at the same time as the contribution limit—in the\nimmediate aftermath of the BOPTROT scandal. Removing the exception simply changed the\nlimit on gifts from $100 to $0. Kentucky’s choice to reduce the limit to $0, we think, “goes to\nwhether the limit is sufficiently tailored, not whether [Kentucky] had a sufficiently important\ninterest to justify setting any [gift] limit at all.” Zimmerman v. City of Austin, 881 F.3d 378, 386\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 13\n\n\n(5th Cir. 2018). But even if we required a showing that its decision to remove this exception\nfurthers its anticorruption interest, Kentucky has done so.\n\n As KLEC’s representative explained, removing the de minimis exception—and the\nadministrative blunders that accompanied it—helps prevent the appearance of corruption. To be\nsure, KLEC’s representative admitted that the de minimis exception “had not developed into an\nethics problem,” but that it was an “administrative” and “public perception” problem. R. 47-1,\nPageID 881–82. Administering the exception led to “incorrect reports that include[d] legislators\nwho didn’t even attend events or didn’t eat or drink at the events but they’re getting their name\npublicized.” Id. at PageID 883. Faced with this issue, the legislature decided to entirely close\nthis “loophole in the law” by “paint[ing] a brighter line for the General Assembly and the public\nto know that legislators are not taking anything of value.” Id. at PageID 826–27.\n\n Kentucky is not an outlier. Both before the district court and on appeal, Kentucky cited\nthe laws and experiences of other states to justify the removal of the de minimis exception. See\nWagner v. FEC, 793 F.3d 1, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (noting the relevance of the\n“experience of states with and without similar laws” to this inquiry). The Commonwealth took\nthis action after KLEC recommended it, grounding the recommendation on its research of\ngovernmental ethics issues, a task assigned to it by statute. See § 6.666(15). Its research yielded\nplentiful and detailed newspaper accounts from across the country “supporting inferences of\nimpropriety” arising from gifts of value, Shrink, 528 U.S. at 393, including several that discussed\nhow lobbyists and their employers skirted de minimis exceptions with tickets to sporting events,\nrounds of golf, and cigars. R. 64-5, PageID 3361. In addition to its recommendation, KLEC\ncompiled these news articles into Ethics Reporters, which it disseminated monthly to all\nlegislators, lobbyists, and employers of lobbyists. R. 64-5, PageID 3354–67.1\n\n\n\n\n 1The legislators cross-appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to strike these newsletters, arguing\nthat the clips of several newspaper articles within them constitutes “inadmissible hearsay and was unauthenticated.”\nBut because the newsletters were authenticated, see R. 82, PageID 4163–64, and plainly not offered for the truth of\nthe matter asserted, they are not hearsay. See Biegas v. Quickway Carriers, Inc., 573 F.3d 365, 379 (6th Cir. 2009).\nRather, they were offered as evidence of what was before the legislature at the time, and for their effect on KLEC’s\nrecommendation to the legislature.\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 14\n\n\n And just as in Wagner, further evidence comes from other states enacting their own gift\nbans that do not have de minimis exceptions. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. § 112.313(2); Haw. Rev.\nStat. Ann. § 84-11; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 10A.071(2); S.C. Code Ann. § 2-17-80(A); Vt. Stat. Ann.\ntit. 2, §§ 261(6)(a), 266(a)(2); Wisc. Stat. Ann. §§ 19.42, 19.45, 19.56(3). “The fact that many\nstates have such laws shows that [Kentucky] is no outlier,” Wagner, 793 F.3d at 16, and that\nother states believe gifts of value create a threat of corruption or its appearance.\n\n * * *\n\n Tellingly, perhaps, of the 138 members of the Kentucky General Assembly, only one\nmember—the member who initiated this lawsuit—voted against the 2014 amendments\nthat enacted the regular session ban and removed the de minimis exception.\nKentucky Legislature, 2014 Regular Session Voting Record – HB 28,\nhttps://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/14rs/hb28.html. Just as the overwhelming seventy-four-\npercent statewide vote in favor of the contribution limits in Shrink helped demonstrate the state’s\ninterest, 528 U.S. at 394, so too this landslide vote. Had the legislators made a showing of their\nown to cast doubt on the evidence presented here, Kentucky might have needed to show more.\nId. But on this record, Kentucky adequately illustrated that these ethics provisions further the\nsufficiently important interest of preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.\n\n 2. Are the challenged provisions closely drawn?\n\n To clear the second hurdle of the closely drawn test, a state must show it employed\n“means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms.”\nMcCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 197 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25). This requires “a fit that is not\nnecessarily perfect, but reasonable; that represents not necessarily the single best disposition but\none whose scope is ‘in proportion to the interest served,’ . . . that employs not necessarily the\nleast restrictive means but . . . a means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.” Id. at\n218 (quoting Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480 (1989)). In conducting\nsuch review, of course, we owe “proper deference to a [legislative] determination of the need for\na prophylactic rule [to address] the evil of potential corruption.” Nat’l Conservative Political\nAction Comm., 470 U.S. at 500; Nat’l Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. at 210.\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 15\n\n\n Contribution Ban. This provision prohibits a legislator from accepting a campaign\ncontribution from a lobbyist. § 6.767(2). Not long ago, the Fourth Circuit applied closely drawn\nscrutiny and upheld a complete ban on campaign contributions by lobbyists. Preston, 660 F.3d\nat 729, 735–36. There, plaintiff argued that the provision was not closely drawn because the\nstate “could have allowed for . . . small donations . . . without undermining its interest in\npreventing actual and perceived corruption.” Id. at 736. The court rejected this argument,\nreasoning that, in response to recent scandals, the legislature made the “rational judgment that a\ncomplete ban was necessary as a prophylactic to prevent not only actual corruption but also [its]\nappearance.” Id. The court also emphasized that the ban aimed only at lobbyists “who,\nexperience has taught, are especially susceptible to political corruption.” Id. at 737. “This is\nboth an important and a legitimate legislative judgment that ‘[c]ourts simply are not in the\nposition to second-guess,’ especially ‘where corruption is the evil feared.’” Id. at 736 (citation\nomitted).\n\n The Fourth Circuit’s reasoning persuades us. Lobbyists’ role undoubtedly sharpens the\nrisk of corruption and its appearance. See Wagner, 793 F.3d at 22; see Eric Lipton & Ben\nProtess, Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills, N.Y. Times, May 23, 2013. To be\nsure, “[t]he role of a lobbyist is both legitimate and important to legislation and government\ndecisionmaking, but by its very nature, it is prone to corruption and therefore especially\nsusceptible to public suspicion of corruption.” Preston, 660 F.3d at 737. Indeed, contributions\nand gifts from lobbyists and others who have a “particularly direct financial interest in these\nofficials’ policy decisions pose a heightened risk of actual and apparent corruption, and merit\nheightened government regulation.” Ognibene, 671 F.3d at 188; see Preston, 660 F.3d at 737\n(“Any payment made by a lobbyist to a public official, whether a campaign contribution or\nsimply a gift, calls into question the propriety of the relationship, and therefore North Carolina\ncould rationally adjudge that it should ban all payments.”).\n\n We find no merit to the legislators’ argument that only recent scandals justify a\ncontribution ban. Courts do not require a recent scandal; indeed, the Supreme Court views\ncontribution limits as preventative measures. Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 356 (noting the\npreventative nature of direct contribution restrictions because “the scope of such pernicious\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 16\n\n\npractices can never be reliably ascertained”). We do not require Kentucky “to experience the\nvery problem it fears before taking appropriate prophylactic measures.” Ognibene, 671 F.3d at\n188.\n\n Yes, a total ban presents a significant restriction. But under the closely drawn standard,\n“[e]ven a ‘significant interference with protected rights’ of political association may be\nsustained.” McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 197 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While\nthis ban dispenses with one means a legislator has to gather funds, it leaves open others less\nsusceptible to the same risk of corruption or its appearance, and thus survives closely drawn\nscrutiny. See Preston, 660 F.3d at 734 (finding that the ban “serv[ed] only as a channeling\ndevice, cutting off the avenue of association and expression that is most likely to lead to\ncorruption but allowing numerous other avenues of association and expression”).\n\n Regular Session Contribution Ban. This provision broadens the reach of the contribution\nban; it prohibits a legislator from accepting campaign contributions from employers of lobbyists\nand PACs, though only during a regular legislative session. § 6.767(3). The district court upheld\nthe ban, relying primarily on two cases. See Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 715–16 (finding a nearly\nidentical ban closely drawn because it applied to only two of the “most ubiquitous and powerful\nplayers in the political arena,” and did “nothing more than place a temporary hold” on the ability\nto contribute during the time when the risk of corruption is highest); Kimbell, 665 A.2d at 51\n(finding a ban on contributions by lobbyists during active legislative sessions closely drawn\nbecause it focused on “a narrow period during which legislators could be, or could appear to be,\npressured, coerced, or tempted into voting on the basis of cash contributions”). We agree.\n\n First, this time-specific ban restricts less than would an absolute ban, Lavin, 689 F.3d at\n548, and targets the time when the risk of quid pro quo corruption—especially its appearance—is\nhighest, Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 716. Indeed, contributions to a legislator (or his challenger) when a\nlegislator is poised to cast a favorable (or unfavorable) vote on a pet bill could cause Kentuckians\nto question whether the contribution motivated the vote. See id. (“[T]he temptation to exchange\n‘dollars for political favors’ can be powerful.”). For that reason, we assess this limited ban as\npermissible. As the Supreme Court emphasized, “the danger of corruption and the appearance of\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 17\n\n\ncorruption apply with equal force to challengers and to incumbents,” justifying “imposing the\nsame fundraising constraints upon both.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 33 (emphasis added).\n\n In addition to the time limitation, the Commonwealth limited the coverage of this ban to\ntwo of the “most ubiquitous and powerful players in the political arena.” Bartlett, 168 F.3d at\n716. Though these players can significantly inform the legislative process, “there remain\npowerful hydraulic pressures at play [that] can cause both legislators and lobbyists to cross the\nline.” Id. The legislators take issue with the scope of this ban, arguing that it covers “[e]ach and\nevery PAC,” not just those that employ lobbyists, as was the case in Bartlett. 168 F.3d at 714.\nBut Kentucky similarly limited the definition of what constitutes a PAC. As we noted over\ntwenty years ago, the Kentucky General Assembly “explicitly narrow[ed] the definition of\n‘permanent committee’ to encompass only those organizations which expressly advocate the\nelection or defeat of clearly identified candidate(s).” Terry, 108 F.3d at 643; see Ky. Rev. Stat.\nAnn. § 121.015(3)(d).\n\n The level of scandal uncovered by Operation BOPTROT, as well as the experiences of\nother states, provides more than “scant evidence” that lobbyists sometimes turn to employers and\nPACs to achieve their ends. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 232, overruled on other grounds by Citizens\nUnited, 558 U.S. 310. Indeed, if we upheld the absolute ban on lobbyist contributions but struck\ndown this restriction, we would be inviting the very circumvention proscribed by this provision.\nSee Leake, 525 F.3d at 292. Because this provision “does nothing more than recognize that\nlobbyists”—and their employers and narrowly-defined PACs—“are paid to persuade legislators,\nnot to purchase them,” Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 718, and that contributions made by these power\nplayers during an active session are particularly likely to give rise to the appearance of\ncorruption, we find this time-limited ban closely drawn.\n\n Gift Ban. The gift ban provision prohibits a legislator or his spouse from soliciting,\naccepting, or agreeing to accept “anything of value” from a lobbyist or his employer. § 6.751(2).\nWe again see no constitutional problem here. The gift ban does not prevent lobbyists and\nlegislators from meeting to discuss pressing issues facing Kentuckians. To be sure, it does not\nforbid any interaction or the utterance of any word between the two. They may associate as\noften as they wish over a cup of coffee or dinner or baseball game. This law simply requires\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 18\n\n\nthat, if they do, legislators pay their own way. A fair, reasonable way of preventing quid pro quo\ncorruption and its appearance. Appellant Br. at 31 (noting that legislators receive a $154 per\ndiem from taxpayer funds during the session for precisely this purpose).\n\n In addition, we reject the legislators’ argument that permitting events where all legislators\nare invited and not requiring reporting of who attended such events makes these provisions\nunderinclusive. See § 6.611(2)(b)(8); Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656, 1670\n(2015) (“Underinclusivity creates a First Amendment concern when the State regulates one\naspect of a problem while declining to regulate a different aspect of the problem that affects its\nstated interest in a comparable way.”). This exception permits associations and facilitates\nspeech between lobbyists and legislators without undercutting Kentucky’s stated interest or\nabridging associational freedoms. Through this carve out, Kentucky encourages interactions that\nare less likely to raise concerns about actual or apparent corruption. R. 47-1, PageID 785\n(“[I] think they focused on events to which bipartisan, bicameral groups of legislators were\ninvited . . . , [which are] much less problematic than a one-on-one dinner . . . where a lobbyist\npays all the tab and gets that kind of one-on-one time.”). Thus, this provision survives closely\ndrawn review.\n\n Having found these provisions closely drawn, we turn to examine the legislators’ other\narguments for striking down the gift ban—that it is content based, a violation of their right to\nequal protection, vague, and overbroad. As to each, we disagree.\n\n D. Content-Based Restriction on Speech\n\n The legislators argue that the gift ban provision is a content-based restriction because it\n“targets gifts based on the identity of the giver.” Appellee Br. at 32. But speaker-based bans are\nnot automatically content based or content neutral. Rather, because “[s]peech restrictions based\non the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content,” Citizens\nUnited, 558 U.S. at 340, such laws “demand strict scrutiny when the legislature’s speaker\npreference reflects a content preference,” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2230 (2015)\n(quoting Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 658 (1994)); see Nat’l Inst. of Family\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 19\n\n\n& Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2378 (2018). To make this determination, we\nfollow the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Reed. 135 S. Ct. at 2230.2\n\n A law reflects a content preference when it cannot be “justified without reference to the\ncontent of the regulated speech” or was “adopted by the government ‘because of disagreement\nwith the message [the speech] conveys.’” Id. at 2227 (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism,\n491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)). In making this determination, “[t]he government’s purpose is the\ncontrolling consideration.” Ward, 491 U.S. at 791. “[A] regulation that serves purposes\nunrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on\nsome speakers or messages but not others.” See McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 480 (2014)\n(quoting Ward, 491 U.S. at 791). The gift ban provision passes this test.\n\n Again, Kentucky’s purpose was clear: To protect the integrity of the legislative process\nand avoid the reality or appearance that state legislation was being bought and sold. § 6.606.\nSuch a purpose reflects a preference for a state legislature that maintains the trust of its citizens,\nnot for the expression of certain content. See McCullen, 573 U.S. at 480. Nor have the\nlegislators offered any evidence that the provision was adopted by Kentucky “because of\ndisagreement with the message [the speech] conveys.” Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2227. It applies to\ngifts that are “pecuniary or compensatory in value,” regardless of whether they convey any\nmessage at all.\n\n In Reed, the Court discussed speaker-based bans and explained that a law limiting the\ncontent of newspapers—and only newspapers—could not avoid strict scrutiny “simply because it\ncould be characterized as speaker based.” 135 S. Ct. at 2230. So too, a “content-based law that\nrestricted the political speech of all corporations would not become content neutral just because\nit singled out corporations as a class of speakers.” Id. (citing Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 340–\n41). Reed, at bottom, teaches us to be wary of speaker-based restrictions that are nothing more\nthan content-based restrictions in disguise. And wary we are. Kentucky’s gift ban provision,\n\n\n\n 2Normally, the “first step in the content-neutrality analysis” requires us to determine “whether the law is\ncontent neutral on its face.” Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2228. Nowhere, however, do the legislators argue that this\nprovision is facially content based.\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 20\n\n\nhowever, serves an anticorruption purpose unrelated to the content of expression and is justified\nwithout any reference to the content of the gifts regulated. See Ward, 491 U.S. at 791.\n\n Since the gift ban provision is content neutral, it is “subject to an intermediate level of\nscrutiny.” Turner, 512 U.S. at 642. Thus, just as the other First Amendment challenges here, we\napply closely drawn scrutiny. See Zimmerman, 881 F.3d at 384–85 (rejecting argument that base\ncontribution limit was content based and applying closely drawn scrutiny). Again, the\nCommonwealth has demonstrated that the gift ban advances its anticorruption interest and\nemploys means closely drawn to do so, and therefore survives closely drawn review.\n\n E. Equal Protection\n\n The district court found that the gift ban violated lobbyists’ right to equal protection\nbecause “[e]ven though lobbyists and their employers are not part of a suspect class, a law that\ntreats them differently from other citizens is subject to the highest level of scrutiny when it seeks\nto suppress their political expression.” R. 122, PageID 4642. It got there by relying on the\nSupreme Court’s decision in Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), where\nthe Court held that “[b]ecause the right to engage in political expression is fundamental to our\nconstitutional system, statutory classifications impinging upon that right must be narrowly\ntailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.” Id. at 666, overruled on other grounds by\nCitizens United, 558 U.S. 310.\n\n In Citizens United, the Court overruled Austin on the question of whether the government\nmay, under the First Amendment, suppress political speech “based on the corporate identity of\nthe speaker.” 558 U.S. at 364. But the Court did not express an intent to overturn Austin’s\nholding regarding the level of scrutiny applied to political expression, so it remains good law.\nSee Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864, 879–80 (8th Cir. 2012)\n(en banc) (explaining that Citizens United did not explicitly overrule the equal protection\nanalysis in Austin); Riddle v. Hickenlooper, 742 F.3d 922, 928 n.4 (10th Cir. 2014) (same). That\nsaid, several of our sister circuits express doubt as to whether Austin demands strict scrutiny in\ncases involving equal protection challenges to contribution limits.\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 21\n\n\n The D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, found Austin distinguishable and declined to follow it.\nWagner, 793 F.3d at 32. It held that closely drawn scrutiny applied to an equal protection\nchallenge to a contractor contribution ban, rejecting the “doctrinal gambit” that “would require\nstrict scrutiny notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s determination that the ‘closely drawn’\nstandard is the appropriate one under the First Amendment.” Id. It noted that, although the\nSupreme Court “has on occasion applied strict scrutiny in examining equal protection challenges\nin cases involving First Amendment rights, it has done so only when a First Amendment analysis\nwould itself have required such scrutiny.” Id. Such was the case in Austin, where the Court\napplied strict scrutiny to determine whether restrictions on independent expenditures by\ncorporations passed muster under the equal protection clause. Austin, 494 U.S. at 655–56. To be\nsure, the plaintiffs in Wagner could find “no case in any court ‘in which an equal-protection\nchallenge to contribution limits succeeded where a First Amendment one did not.’” Wagner,\n793 F.3d at 32–33 (citation omitted).\n\n In Riddle, although the Tenth Circuit applied the closely drawn test to an equal protection\nchallenge to contribution limits that treated candidates differently if they were unopposed for\ntheir nominations only “[f]or the sake of argument,” the court recognized that, in the First\nAmendment context, the Supreme Court has applied closely drawn scrutiny to contribution\nlimits. Riddle, 742 F.3d at 927–28. In his concurrence, then-Judge Gorsuch noted that “the\nCourt has yet to apply strict scrutiny to contribution limit challenges—employing [closely drawn\nscrutiny] instead,” and questioned whether “an interest [can] become more potent (‘more’\nfundamental) when viewed through the lens of equal protection analysis?” Id. at 931 (Gorsuch,\nJ., concurring).\n\n The Second Circuit too summarily rejected an equal protection challenge to a\ncontribution limit where it already had held that the limit did not constitute viewpoint\ndiscrimination under the First Amendment. Ognibene, 671 F.3d at 193 n.19. And in rejecting\nthe same sort of challenge, one district court stated that it was not surprising such arguments had\nfailed because the Supreme Court’s precedent “hold[s] that it makes no difference whether a\nchallenge to the disparate treatment of speakers or speech is framed under the First Amendment\nor the Equal Protection Clause.” Illinois Liberty PAC v. Madigan, 902 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1126\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 22\n\n\n(N.D. Ill. 2012) (collecting Supreme Court cases); see City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.,\n475 U.S. 41, 55 n.4 (1986) (“As should be apparent from our preceding discussion, respondents\ncan fare no better under the Equal Protection Clause than under the First Amendment itself.”).\n\n As for this circuit, we’ve not yet considered the level of scrutiny to apply. From our\nreview of other circuits’ precedent, however, we agree that the best reading of Austin, especially\nconsidering the scope of its application, confines its holding to cases in which the First\nAmendment analysis itself requires strict scrutiny. See Wagner, 793 F.3d at 32. We have found\nno case where the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny in examining an equal protection\nchallenge when the First Amendment analysis itself did not require such scrutiny, see id., and\njust as our sister circuits, we decline to be the first. Thus, we hold that closely drawn scrutiny,\nthe tier of scrutiny applied to the First Amendment challenge, also applies to the equal protection\nchallenge. The gift ban withstands such scrutiny.\n\n F. Vagueness\n\n To succeed on a vagueness challenge, a plaintiff must show either that the law (1) “fails\nto provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it\nprohibits”; or (2) “authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”\nJohnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2566 (2015). For laws that interfere with the right of\nfree speech or association, “a more stringent vagueness test should apply.” Platt v. Bd. of\nComm’rs on Grievances & Discipline of Ohio Supreme Court, 894 F.3d 235, 246 (6th Cir.\n2018). But we do not require “perfect clarity and precise guidance.” Holder v. Humanitarian\nLaw Project, 561 U.S. 1, 19 (2010). On appeal, plaintiffs challenge only “the vague so called\n‘catchall’ provision”—§ 6.611(2)(a)(14), not the entire definition of “anything of value” in\n§ 6.611(2)(a).\n\n Fair Notice. When determining whether a law provides fair notice, “in the absence of\nstate court guidance, we examine ‘the words of the ordinance itself.’” Platt, 894 F.3d at 246\n(quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 110 (1972)). The catch-all provision reads:\n“[a]ny other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a person, or the primary\nsignificance of which is economic gain.” § 6.811(2)(a)(14). A common dictionary defines\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 23\n\n\n“value” as “the monetary worth of something,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary\nUnabridged 2530 (2002), and “pecuniary” nearly the same, id. at 1663. And “compensatory” is\ndefined as “serving as compensation,” with “compensation” defined as “the act or action of\nmaking up, making good, or counterbalancing,” or “payment for value received or service\nrendered.” Id. at 463.\n\n No vagueness plagues any of these terms. Laws marked by “flexibility and reasonable\nbreadth, rather than meticulous specificity,” are not inevitably vague, see Platt, 894 F.3d at 246–\n47, and we do not require—or expect—“mathematical certainty from our language.” Grayned,\n408 U.S. at 110. A person of ordinary intelligence would know that this language—used in both\nlegal and common parlance—bars them from accepting or soliciting money or a gift that serves\nas payment for a service provided. See Platt, 894 F.3d at 247. And the additional phrase “or the\nprimary significance of which is economic gain” does not muddy the waters.\n\n Here, though the catch-all provision is marked by flexibility and reasonable breadth, we\nthink “it is clear what the ordinance as a whole prohibits.” Deja Vu of Cincinnati, L.L.C. v.\nUnion Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 411 F.3d 777, 798 (6th Cir. 2005). Even if these “words leave some\nwiggle room,” Platt, 894 F.3d at 247, the Ethics Code provides multiple mechanisms to\ndetermine whether the gift is permissible. See § 6.827(1) (requiring lobbyists and their\nemployers to deliver a copy of reported expenditures to the legislator at least ten days before\nfiling a report with KLEC); see § 6.827(2) (providing procedure for resolving any discrepancies\nin report). Most importantly, § 6.681 allows a legislator or lobbyist to seek an advisory opinion\nto clarify any ambiguities, admittedly not done here. See Platt, 894 F.3d at 247.\n\n Nor do KLEC’s representative’s answers to hypotheticals posed in interrogatories\ndemonstrate vagueness here. Id. at 249–50. “Hypotheticals are a favorite tool of those bringing\nvagueness challenges,” as almost all statutes are “susceptible to clever hypotheticals testing its\nreach.” Id. at 251. The district court and the legislators seized on one exchange where KLEC’s\nrepresentative suggested that “a bottle of water” offered during a meeting to discuss a pending\nbill could be a “possible” thing of value that would violate the ban, and that the legislator could\n“call [him] and ask [him] if he should accept under the circumstances.” R. 47-1, PageID 668–71.\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 24\n\n\n Just as in Platt, “[s]pecific facts matter,” and it would have been irresponsible of the\nrepresentative to respond definitively. See 894 F.3d at 248. Though a bottle of water does not\nimmediately come to mind when one reads the catch-all provision (and the rest of § 6.611(2)(a)-\n(b)), it could possibly fall under the provision based on the surrounding circumstances.\nResponding, then, as here, that the situation would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by\nlooking at the surrounding circumstances shows prudence, not vagueness. See id. at 251.\n\n The legislators offered another example to show vagueness. An employer of a lobbyist\ninvited Senator Schickel to tour a factory, but he “declined due to a legitimate fear that being lent\na hard hat to tour the facility, being subjected to heat for the building, or stopping to use the\nrestroom facilities in the factory during the tour could run afoul” of this rule. Appellee Br. at 44.\nBut this is a specious argument considering the detailed lists including, § 6.611(2)(a), and\nexcluding, § 6.611(2)(b), items from “anything of value.” The catch-all provision’s plain\nlanguage and the means to resolve questions about its coverage, including advisory opinions,\nprovide fair notice of the conduct it prohibits.\n\n Arbitrary Enforcement. To determine whether a statute creates opportunities for arbitrary\nenforcement, we ask whether the catch-all provision “provide[s] explicit standards guiding [its]\nenforcement.” United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Sw. Ohio Reg’l\nTransit Auth., 163 F.3d 341, 359 (6th Cir. 1998). Just as in challenges to similarly-worded gift\nbans on lobbyists and others, we hold that explicit standards guide the enforcement of this\nprovision. See Fla. Ass’n, 525 F.3d at 1075 n.1 (upholding lobbyist gift ban that defined\n“expenditure” as “a payment, distribution, loan, advance, reimbursement, deposit, or anything of\nvalue made by a lobbyist or principal for the purpose of lobbying”); Kimbell, 665 A.2d at 82 n.1\n(“anything else of value”); see also Yamada v. Snipes, 786 F.3d 1182, 1188–89 (9th Cir. 2015)\n(rejecting vagueness challenge to “expenditure” definition that included “anything of value”); Vt.\nRight to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 758 F.3d 118, 130 (2d Cir. 2014) (same). In fact, the\nstatutes in Florida Association and Kimbell provided far fewer examples of what the term\n“expenditure” did and did not include—nothing close to the twenty-five-plus subparts here. See\nFla. Stat. Ann. §§ 11.045(1)(c), 112.3215(1)(d); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, § 261(5).\n\n We find the catch-all provision not void for vagueness.\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 25\n\n\n G. Overbreadth and Chilling Effect\n\n “A law is overbroad under the First Amendment if it ‘reaches a substantial number of\nimpermissible applications’ relative to the law’s legitimate sweep.” East Brooks Books, Inc. v.\nShelby Cty., 588 F.3d 360, 366 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). A plaintiff making an\noverbroad challenge may not “leverag[e] a few alleged unconstitutional applications of the\nstatute into a ruling invalidating the law in all of its applications.” Speet v. Schuette, 726 F.3d\n867, 878 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Connection Distrib. Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321, 340 (6th Cir.\n2009) (en banc)). Rather, a plaintiff “must demonstrate from the text of the statute and from\nactual fact that a substantial number of instances exist in which the law cannot be applied\nconstitutionally.” Id.\n\n Much of our analysis here overlaps with our vagueness analysis. In finding the law\noverbroad, the district court once again relied on the same hypotheticals discussed previously.\nBut, again, this provision does not sweep so broadly. As before, plaintiffs provide no evidence\nof any person who has ever been charged with violating this provision for (i) receiving a bottle of\nwater; (ii) walking into a heated or cooled room; or even (iii) using the restroom in a lobbyist’s\noffice. Indeed, KLEC has never interpreted these “gifts” as “[some]thing of value” to be\n“reported, limited, or prohibited.” In the unlikely event that KLEC ever charges anyone for (or\nthreatens enforcement of) such conduct, an as-applied challenge would be appropriate.\n\n We agree with the Commonwealth’s argument that “[t]he gift ban . . . prevent[s]\nlobbyists from paying for one-on-one or small group interactions with legislators, to avoid the\nreality or appearance that important state legislation is being bought and sold in private.”\nAppellant Br. at 31–32. Even in First Amendment cases, facial invalidation is “strong medicine\nthat is not to be casually employed.” Connection Distrib., 557 F.3d at 336 (quoting United\nStates v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 293 (2008)). Given the plainly legitimate sweep of these\nprovisions to sports tickets, cars, wine, vacations, and art, the gift ban is not overbroad.\n\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 26\n\n\n V. CONCLUSION\n\n Kentucky’s legislature acted to protect itself and its citizens from the damaging effects of\ncorruption. Because these laws are closely drawn to further Kentucky’s anticorruption interest,\nthey pass constitutional muster. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the court’s judgment upholding the\nconstitutionality of § 6.767(3), and the dismissal of § 121.150(13) on standing grounds. We\nVACATE the district court’s judgment as to § 6.811(4), § 6.811(5), § 6.811(6), and § 6.811(7),\nand REMAND with instructions to dismiss those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.\nWe REVERSE the court’s judgment as to § 6.751(2) and § 6.767(2), VACATE the permanent\ninjunction in its entirety, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: John SCHICKEL, in His Personal and Official Capacities; David Watson, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Ken Moellman, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig C. DILGER, in His Official Capacity as Chair and Member, Kentucky Registry of Election Finance ; Rosemary F. Center; Terry Naydan; Reid Haire; Robert D. Mattingley; Chastity Ross; Thomas B. Stephens ; John R. Steffen, Defendants-Appellees, George C. Troutman, in His Official Capacity as Chairman and Member of the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission ; Elmer George; Pat Freibert; Tony Goetz; Ken Winters ; Tom Jensen; Sheldon Baugh ; Phil Huddleston; Anthony M. Wilhoit; H. John Schaaf, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-30\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0110p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nJOHN SCHICKEL, in his Personal and Official ┐\\nCapacities; DAVID WATSON, │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, │\\n │\\n │\\nKEN MOELLMAN, JR., │\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, > Nos. 17-6456/6505\\n │\\n │\\n v. │\\n │\\nCRAIG C. DILGER, in his Official Capacity as Chair │\\nand Member, Kentucky Registry of Election Finance; │\\nROSEMARY F. CENTER; TERRY NAYDAN; REID HAIRE; │\\nROBERT D. MATTINGLEY; CHASTITY ROSS; THOMAS B. │\\nSTEPHENS; JOHN R. STEFFEN, │\\n │\\n │\\n Defendants-Appellees, │\\n │\\nGEORGE C. TROUTMAN, in his Official Capacity as │\\nChairman and Member of the Kentucky Legislative │\\nEthics Commission; ELMER GEORGE; PAT FREIBART; │\\nTONY GOETZ; KEN WINTERS; TOM JENSEN; SHELDON │\\nBAUGH; PHIL HUDDLESTON; ANTHONY M. WILHOIT; H. │\\nJOHN SCHAFF, │\\n Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington.\\n No. 2:15-cv-00155—William O. Bertelsman, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: October 18, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 30, 2019\\n\\n Before: MERRITT, COOK, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Andrew G. Beshear, OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL,\\nFrankfort, Kentucky, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Christopher D. Wiest, CHRIS WIEST,\\nATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Emily Dennis,\\nKENTUCKY REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellees. ON\\nBRIEF: Matt James, La Tasha Buckner, OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY\\nGENERAL, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Thomas B. Bruns, BRUNS,\\nCONNELL, VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, Robert A. Winter, Jr.,\\nFORT MITCHELL, KENTUCKY, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Emily Dennis,\\nKENTUCKY REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellees.\\nBarbara B. Edelman, Haley Trogdlen McCauley, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, Lexington,\\nKentucky, Tara Malloy, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n COOK, Circuit Judge. One sitting state senator and one prospective candidate for elected\\noffice in Kentucky challenged several state campaign finance and ethics laws, claiming\\nviolations of their First Amendment rights to free speech and association and Fourteenth\\nAmendment right to equal protection. Kentucky argues that these measures, enacted to prevent\\ncorruption and protect its citizens’ trust in their elected officials, comport with the Constitution.\\nThe district court, for the most part, disagreed with the Commonwealth. We see it differently.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n John Schickel, the incumbent state senator for the 11th Senatorial District in Kentucky,\\nand David Watson, who unsuccessfully ran for the 6th House District in 2016, brought this suit\\nalleging that several of Kentucky’s campaign finance and ethics statutes violated their rights\\nprotected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sued several members of Kentucky’s\\nRegistry of Election Finance (KREF) and Legislative Ethics Commission (KLEC), agencies\\ncharged with enforcing the campaign finance and ethics laws.\\n\\n This appeal challenges the now defunct campaign finance provision that restricted the\\namount a candidate may loan to his campaign. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 121.150(13). As for the\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nethics provisions, the legislators challenge seven of them. Of the seven, three groups of two\\nmirroring provisions—one proscribing certain conduct by legislators and the corollary version\\nfor lobbyists—impose:\\n\\n (1) a contribution ban, §§ 6.767(2) and 6.811(6), which prohibits a legislator,\\n candidate for the legislature, or his or her campaign committee from accepting a\\n campaign contribution from a lobbyist, and a lobbyist from making the same;\\n (2) a regular session contribution ban, §§ 6.767(3) and 6.811(7), which\\n prohibits a legislator, candidate for the legislature, or his or her campaign\\n committee from accepting a campaign contribution from an employer of a\\n lobbyist or a political committee (PAC) during a regular session of the General\\n Assembly, and an employer of a lobbyist from making the same; and\\n (3) a gift ban, §§ 6.751(2) and 6.811(4), which prohibits a legislator or his spouse\\n from accepting “anything of value” from a lobbyist or his employer, and a\\n lobbyist or employer of a lobbyist from knowingly offering the same to a\\n legislator, candidate, or his family.\\n\\nThe final ethics provision applies only to lobbyists:\\n\\n (4) a solicitation/treasurer ban, § 6.811(5), which prohibits a lobbyist from\\n (i) serving as a campaign treasurer, and (ii) directly soliciting, controlling, or\\n delivering a campaign contribution to a legislator or candidate.\\n\\n The district court dismissed the campaign finance claim as moot because a legislative\\namendment eliminated the provision. As for the ethics provisions, the court found that the laws\\nburdened “core political speech” and curtailed freedom of association, requiring strict scrutiny of\\nevery ethics provision except the regular session contribution ban. It ultimately upheld the\\nregular session contribution ban, but found all the other challenged ethics provisions\\nunconstitutional and unenforceable.\\n\\n Defendants then moved this court for a stay pending appeal, which we granted. The\\nparties cross-appealed.\\n\\n II. CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROVISION\\n\\n We begin with the self-funding restriction, repealed in 2017 by the Kentucky legislature,\\nwhich limited the amount a candidate could personally loan his own campaign. See\\n§ 121.150(13) (repealed 2017). Though this court found the provision wholly unconstitutional in\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nAnderson v. Spear, 356 F.3d 651, 673 (6th Cir. 2004), Schickel and Watson nevertheless worry\\nthat KREF may yet enforce the statute.\\n\\n To establish standing under Article III, a plaintiff must show, among other things, an\\n“injury in fact.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). In a pre-enforcement\\nchallenge, such as here, a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement by alleging “an\\nintention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but\\nproscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.” Susan B.\\nAnthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 159 (2014) (quoting Babbitt v. United Farm Workers\\nNat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979)). “A threat of future enforcement may be ‘credible’ when\\nthe same conduct has drawn enforcement actions or threats of enforcement in the past.” Kiser v.\\nReitz, 765 F.3d 601, 609 (6th Cir. 2014).\\n\\n Here, the legislators have not shown a credible threat of prosecution. KREF has not\\nenforced this provision since Anderson struck it down. Indeed, “if a statute is unconstitutional\\non its face, the State may not enforce the statute under any circumstances.” Women’s Med.\\nProf’l Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 193 (6th Cir. 1997). The legislators cite several alleged\\nenforcements, but all involve other provisions—§§ 121.180 and 121.150(1), (6), (12), and (20)—\\nnot this one. Cf. Russell v. Lundergan-Grimes, 784 F.3d 1037, 1049 (6th Cir. 2015) (history of\\npast enforcement against others established injury in fact). Nor have the legislators shown that\\nKREF has any intention to enforce this provision. At its 30(b)(6) deposition, in its motion for\\nsummary judgment, and during oral argument before this panel, KREF explicitly disavowed\\nenforcement against the legislators for any violations of this provision. The legislators’ case\\ndoes not resemble those it cites to support its position.\\n\\n Thus, because there exists no credible threat of prosecution, the legislators lack standing\\nto challenge this provision. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claim on standing\\ngrounds.\\n\\n III. LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS\\n\\n Before addressing the merits, we consider whether the legislators have standing to assert\\nchallenges to the four ethics provisions governing only the conduct of lobbyists. If the\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nlegislators cannot establish constitutional standing, “their claims must be dismissed for lack of\\nsubject matter jurisdiction.” Loren v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 505 F.3d 598, 607 (6th\\nCir. 2007). Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing standing, and they must support each\\nelement “in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof,\\ni.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at successive stages of the litigation.” Fair\\nElections Ohio v. Husted, 770 F.3d 456, 459 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561).\\nThe legislators may not rely on mere allegations, but “must set forth by affidavit or other\\nevidence specific facts” to show standing. McKay v. Federspiel, 823 F.3d 862, 867 (6th Cir.\\n2016) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561).\\n\\n “[T]he nature and extent of facts that must be averred . . . to establish standing depends\\nconsiderably upon whether the plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or forgone action) at\\nissue.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. When he is, “there is ordinarily little question” that the plaintiff\\nhas standing. Id. at 561–62. But when he is not—when his “asserted injury arises from the\\ngovernment’s allegedly unlawful regulation . . . of someone else”—we require much more. Id. at\\n562. In such circumstances, “causation and redressability ordinarily hinge on the response of the\\nregulated (or regulable) third party to the government action or inaction.” Id.; ASARCO Inc. v.\\nKadish, 490 U.S. 605, 615 (1989) (noting that plaintiff’s ability to satisfy the essential elements\\nof standing “depends on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the courts\\nand whose exercise of broad and legitimate discretion the courts cannot presume either to control\\nor to predict”). The burden therefore falls on the plaintiff to present facts showing that the third\\nparty’s “choices have been or will be made in such manner as to produce causation and permit\\nredressability of injury.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 562. This does not preclude a showing of standing,\\nbut it ordinarily makes it “‘substantially more difficult’ to establish.” Id. (citation omitted); see\\nWarth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 504 (1975).\\n\\n The legislators face an uphill climb: they are not the object of the lobbying restrictions.\\nBut the legislators can establish standing from the operation of these lobbying restrictions; that\\nis, by showing that a restriction has been applied to a lobbyist, his employer, or a PAC—or\\nimminently will be—and “ha[s] caused or will imminently cause” plaintiffs’ concrete injury. See\\nTenn. Republican Party v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 863 F.3d 507, 520 (6th Cir. 2017). Here, the\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nlegislators claim the operation of these statutes infringe their right to associate, “receive\\ninformation,” and “receive[] contributions.” An individual’s right to associate, “broadly\\ndefined” by the Supreme Court, includes “the ancillary right of the candidate to ‘amas[s] the\\nresources necessary for effective advocacy.’” Frank v. City of Akron, 290 F.3d 813, 818 (6th\\nCir. 2002) (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 396–97 (2000)). Thus, the\\nlegislators could also prove injury by showing that the challenged laws “w[ere] so radical in\\neffect as to render political association ineffective, drive the sound of a candidate’s voice below\\nthe level of notice, and render contributions pointless.” Shrink, 528 U.S. at 397.\\n\\n Affidavits from Schickel and Watson do not establish an injury from the operation of the\\ncontribution ban or regular session contribution ban. Even assuming a right to receive\\ncontributions, compare Dean v. Blumenthal, 577 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[A]lthough\\nRandall did not recognize a First Amendment right to receive campaign contributions, its\\nanalysis did not foreclose such recognition.”), with Interpipe Contracting, Inc. v. Becerra, 898\\nF.3d 879, 894 (9th Cir. 2018) (“But while the First Amendment protects the right of an\\nindividual to express herself through the medium of finance, it does not establish a free-floating\\nright to receive the funds necessary to broadcast one’s speech.”), the legislators have not shown\\nthese restrictions have caused or imminently will cause them injury.\\n\\n Because they have not done so, “by affidavit or other evidence,” they lack standing to\\nchallenge these lobbying restrictions. See McKay, 823 F.3d at 867. The legislators offer no\\naffidavit from a lobbyist or his employer regarding these restrictions, and they fail to provide\\nevidence that a specific lobbyist, his employer, or a PAC attempted to help in ways proscribed by\\nthe provisions—e.g., serve as treasurer, solicit contributions, or make a contribution—but was\\nturned away due to the lobbying restrictions. The lack of such evidence dooms their claims. See\\nTenn. Republican Party, 863 F.3d at 517 (“[T]here is no reason why Petitioners could not have\\nput forth an affidavit from a particular municipal advisor professional who would have\\ncontributed more than $250 were it not for the 2016 Amendments.”); Lavin v. Husted, 689 F.3d\\n543, 545–47 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding that Medicaid providers had standing to challenge a law\\nthat did not punish them because they had “attempted to contribute” to a state Attorney General\\ncandidate who “refused to accept their contributions, citing Ohio law”).\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n Instead, Schickel and Watson offer their own affidavits, stating their belief that others\\nwould like to violate the restrictions. Schickel asserted that, if not for the contribution\\nrestrictions, he “would accept campaign donations[] from employers of lobbyists” and “from\\ncertain registered lobbyists . . . whose values I share.” R. 65-2, Schickel Aff. ¶¶ 26, 27.\\nMirroring Schickel’s affidavit, Watson averred that “I would, if not prohibited, accept donations\\nfrom [two organizations], and would also accept, if not prohibited, donations on behalf of the\\nlobbyists that lobby for them.” R. 65-3, Watson Aff. ¶ 37. But the assurance that both would\\naccept such contributions means nothing in the absence of an affidavit or other evidence\\nestablishing that such contributions were attempted or would be in the imminent future. See\\nClapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 n.2)\\n(“[I]mminence is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, [but] it cannot be stretched beyond its\\npurpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III\\npurposes—that the injury is certainly impending.”).\\n\\n As for the provision that bans gifts by lobbyists, the legislators’ statements fall short.\\nBoth attested that, before this law’s enactment, they “would not hesitate to take a meeting at a\\nlobbyist’s office.” R. 65-2, Schickel Aff. ¶ 29; R. 65-3, Watson Aff. ¶ 39. After the 2014\\namendment removed the de minimis exception, however, both fear doing so, since “sitting in an\\nair conditioned office” or “receiving a piece of paper to take notes” could be considered\\n“something of value.” R. 65-2, Schickel Aff. ¶ 29; R. 65-3, Watson Aff. ¶ 39. But the\\nlegislators cannot manufacture standing by “inflicting harm on themselves based on their fear of\\nhypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” Clapper, 568 U.S. at 416. According\\nto Schickel, he “used to take turns buying the soda or cup of coffee” with constituents and\\nlobbyists but now does so with only constituents “given the rules in place,” R. 65-2, Schickel\\nAff. ¶ 28, but this alleged injury hinges entirely “on the unfettered choices made” by lobbyists to\\npurchase coffee for him, Kadish, 490 U.S. at 615. This statement offers little more than\\nSchickel’s own guess as to why legislators have stopped purchasing coffee for him (perhaps they\\nprefer the new status quo), and thus fails to adduce facts sufficient to show that the choice not to\\nbuy him coffee can be fairly traced to this provision. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 567 (“Standing is\\nnot ‘an ingenious academic exercise in the conceivable.’” (quoting United States v. Students\\nChallenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 688 (1973))).\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\n The legislators’ affidavits also fall short on the solicitation/treasurer restriction. Each\\nincludes just the lone statement referencing an injury: “[I] would like to have a legislative agent\\nserve as my campaign treasurer, and I am aware of legislative agents that would like to solicit\\nothers to make campaign donations to me, but cannot under the current legislative ethics\\nscheme.” R. 65-2, Schickel Aff. ¶ 33; R. 65-3, Watson Aff. ¶ 42. This is not the proof needed at\\nsummary judgment. Miyazawa v. City of Cincinnati, 45 F.3d 126, 127 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding\\nat summary judgment stage that plaintiff lacked standing because she “merely asserted a general\\ncomplaint that an unidentified candidate that she may want to vote for may not be eligible to run\\nfor that office”).\\n\\n Last, we turn to the legislators’ suggestion that “receiving donations and giving of\\ndonations are two sides of the same coin,” such that a party who has standing to challenge one\\nhas standing to challenge the other. Appellee Br. at 59. But in the one case they cite for this\\nproposition, the political committee and lobbyist acquired standing to challenge the restricting of\\nsoliciting by legislators based on showing that the provision injured them rather than the\\nlegislators or candidates. N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Bartlett, 168 F.3d 705, 710 (4th Cir. 1999).\\n\\n In the absence of specific evidence supporting standing to challenge the lobbying\\nrestrictions, the legislators may not.\\n\\n IV. ETHICS PROVISIONS\\n\\n We now examine the legislators’ challenges to the constitutionality of the three ethics\\nprovisions that target their own conduct: the contribution ban, regular session contribution ban,\\nand gift ban.\\n\\n A. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review de novo a district court’s judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n56. Allied Constr. Indus. v. City of Cincinnati, 879 F.3d 215, 219 (6th Cir. 2018). Summary\\njudgment may be entered only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the\\nmovant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Where, as here, the\\nparties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, “the court must evaluate each party’s motion\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\non its own merits, taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against the party\\nwhose motion is under consideration.” McKay, 823 F.3d at 866 (citation omitted).\\n\\n B. Level of Scrutiny Applied\\n\\n The legislators argue that limiting their receiving contributions burdens political speech.\\nBut contribution limits entail “only a marginal restriction upon the contributor’s ability to engage\\nin free communication,” as they permit “the symbolic expression of support evidenced by a\\ncontribution but do[] not in any way infringe the contributor’s freedom to discuss candidates and\\nissues.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 20–21 (1976) (per curiam). As such, they are subject to\\nclosely drawn scrutiny, a “lesser but still ‘rigorous standard of review.’” McCutcheon v. FEC,\\n572 U.S. 185, 197 (2014) (plurality opinion) (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 29). And\\ncontribution bans—such as those enacted here—receive the same treatment. FEC v. Beaumont,\\n539 U.S. 146, 161–62 (2003) (expressly declining to apply strict scrutiny to a contribution ban).\\n\\n The same goes for the gift ban. See Preston v. Leake, 660 F.3d 726, 729–30 (4th Cir.\\n2011) (upholding lobbyist contribution ban, which defined contributions to include gifts, under\\nclosely drawn scrutiny). Restrictions on gift giving, like those on contributions, are marginal\\nrestrictions that do not in any way hinder lobbyists’ or legislators’ ability to discuss candidates or\\nissues. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 20–21. Indeed, if contribution restrictions “lie closer to the edges\\nthan to the core of political expression,” Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 161, gifts of value hug the fringe.\\nSee United States v. Ring, 706 F.3d 460, 466 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he First Amendment interest\\nin giving hockey tickets to public officials is, at least compared to the interest in contributing to\\npolitical campaigns, de minimis.”).\\n\\n C. Applying Closely Drawn Scrutiny\\n\\n Closely drawn scrutiny requires the Commonwealth to demonstrate that each provision\\nfurthers “a sufficiently important interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary\\nabridgement of associational freedoms.” McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 197 (quoting Buckley,\\n424 U.S. at 25); see Lavin, 689 F.3d at 547.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\n 1. Do the challenged provisions further a “sufficiently important” government interest?\\n\\n The Commonwealth asserts a familiar interest for the ethics provisions: the prevention of\\nactual quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. See § 6.606. This interest has long been\\nconsidered sufficiently important to justify regulating campaign contributions, and “may\\nproperly be labeled ‘compelling,’ so that [it] would satisfy even strict scrutiny.” McCutcheon,\\n572 U.S. at 199 (quoting FEC v. Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480, 496–\\n97 (1985)). It follows that this focus on preventing corruption or its appearance would also\\njustify Kentucky’s gift ban. See Fla. Ass’n of Prof’l Lobbyists, Inc. v. Div. of Legislative Info.\\nServs. of the Fla. Office of Legislative Servs., 525 F.3d 1073, 1080–81 (11th Cir. 2008)\\n(upholding lobbyist gift ban); Preston, 660 F.3d at 729. But having an undeniably important\\ninterest is not enough; Kentucky must still “demonstrate how its [ethics provisions] further[]”\\nthat interest. Lavin, 689 F.3d at 547.\\n\\n To do so, Kentucky must show only “a cognizable risk of corruption”—a “risk of quid\\npro quo corruption or its appearance.” McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 210 (emphasis added); see\\nCitizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 357 (2010) (noting that “restrictions on direct\\ncontributions are preventative” and that the Buckley Court “sustained limits on direct\\ncontributions in order to ensure against the reality or appearance of corruption”) (emphases\\nadded). The threat of corruption must be more than “mere conjecture,” Shrink, 528 U.S. at 392,\\nand cannot be “illusory,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 27. But a state need not produce evidence of\\nactual instances of corruption. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 150 (2003), overruled in\\npart on other grounds by Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 365–66; Lair v. Motl, 873 F.3d 1170, 1178\\n(9th Cir. 2017); Ognibene v. Parkes, 671 F.3d 174, 183 (2d Cir. 2011) (“It is not necessary to\\nproduce evidence of actual corruption to demonstrate the sufficiently important interest in\\npreventing the appearance of corruption.”). Ultimately, “[t]he quantum of empirical evidence\\nneeded . . . will vary up or down with the novelty and plausibility of the justification raised.”\\nShrink, 528 U.S. at 391.\\n\\n The Commonwealth’s briefs describe a sordid history. In the wake of an infamous FBI\\ninvestigation into public corruption in Kentucky that led to “the indictment and conviction of\\nlegislators, former legislators, and lobbyists for criminal misconduct,” known as Operation\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nBOPTROT, the state legislature enacted the Ethics Code. Assoc. Indus. of Ky. v.\\nCommonwealth, 912 S.W.2d 947, 950 (Ky. 1995). In the aftermath of BOPTROT, the public\\nlost faith in its elected officials, and public standing plunged to an all-time low. Tom Loftus &\\nAl Cross, Lies, Bribes and Videotape, The Courier-Journal, July 1, 1993. Corruption was\\nrampant and came cheap—in some cases, legislators accepted as little as $400 from lobbyists in\\nexchange for influencing legislation. Id.; Martin Booe, Ethics: Kentuckians Amazed that $400\\nCan Buy a Lawmaker, L.A. Times, April 13, 1993.\\n\\n Kentucky’s stated interest “[is] neither novel nor implausible.” Shrink, 528 U.S. at 391.\\nThe contribution ban—enacted against this backdrop and untouched by the 2014 amendments—\\nplainly furthers Kentucky’s anticorruption interest. Its own supreme court agreed, rejecting\\nseveral constitutional challenges to the Code’s provisions by an employer of lobbyists and\\nholding that the state demonstrated “a compelling interest in insuring the proper operation of a\\ndemocratic government and deterring corruption, as well as the appearance of corruption.”\\nAssoc. Indus., 912 S.W.2d at 953; see § 6.606.\\n\\n The legislators argue that Operation BOPTROT involved only the horse racing industry,\\nand therefore cannot serve as the basis for restrictions on all lobbyists. Given that lobbyists were\\ncaught up in BOPTROT, however, we find this argument specious. A state need not wait for the\\nentanglement of every industry or every lobbyist in scandal before taking action. See Ognibene,\\n671 F.3d at 188; FEC v. Nat’l Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 210 (1982) (“Nor will we\\nsecond guess a legislative determination as to the need for prophylactic measures where\\ncorruption is the evil feared.”).\\n\\n Kentucky also demonstrated how the regular session contribution ban, created by the\\n2014 amendments, furthers this anticorruption interest. The risk of corruption stemming from\\ncontributions by employers of lobbyists or PACs during a regular session of the legislature “is\\ncommon sense and far from illusory.” Ognibene, 671 F.3d at 187; Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 715–16\\n(upholding prohibition on in-session lobbyist and PAC contributions); Kimbell v. Hooper, 665\\nA.2d 44, 51 (Vt. 1995) (upholding in-session contribution ban and noting that the measure\\n“avoid[ed] a serious appearance of impropriety”). The regular session runs, at most, from early\\nJanuary to March 30th (in odd-numbered years) or April 15th (in even-numbered years).\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nKy. Const. §§ 36, 42. Stifling direct contributions from two of the most powerful players in the\\npolitical arena during these three or so months undoubtedly furthers Kentucky’s interest in\\npreventing the appearance of corruption. See N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274, 291\\n(4th Cir. 2008) (“Direct contributions to political candidates run the greatest risk of making\\ncandidates ‘too compliant with the wishes of large’ donors.” (quoting Shrink, 528 U.S. at 389)).\\n\\n In the years since the Code’s enactment, history confirms that contributions from\\nlobbyists, their employers, and PACs, as well as gifts from lobbyists, suggest quid pro quo\\ncorruption or its appearance. Ky. Right to Life, Inc. v. Terry, 108 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1997)\\n(“Numerous Kentucky public officials have been convicted of abusing their political offices for\\npersonal gain over the past twenty-five years.”); Preston, 660 F.3d at 737 (“We also conclude\\nthat in aiming the ban at only lobbyists, who, experience has taught, are especially susceptible to\\npolitical corruption, North Carolina closely drew its enactment to serve the state interests it\\nidentified.”); Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 716 (“The appearance of corruption resulting from PAC and\\nlobbyist contributions during the legislative session can also be corrosive.”).\\n\\n Further, if lobbyists’ employers and PACs were “free to contribute to legislators while\\npet projects sit before them, the temptation to exchange ‘dollars for political favors’ [would] be\\npowerful.” Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 716 (citation omitted). Even though PACs and lobbyists’\\nemployers may “have no intention of directly ‘purchasing’ favorable treatment, appearances may\\nbe otherwise.” Id. Where “the conflict of interest is apparent [and] the likelihood of stealth\\ngreat,” Blount v. SEC, 61 F.3d 938, 945 (D.C. Cir. 1995), we will not require Kentucky to\\n“experience the very problem it fears before taking appropriate prophylactic measures,”\\nOgnibene, 671 F.3d at 188.\\n\\n As for the removal of the de minimis exception from the gift ban, we note that the\\nCommonwealth enacted this exception at the same time as the contribution limit—in the\\nimmediate aftermath of the BOPTROT scandal. Removing the exception simply changed the\\nlimit on gifts from $100 to $0. Kentucky’s choice to reduce the limit to $0, we think, “goes to\\nwhether the limit is sufficiently tailored, not whether [Kentucky] had a sufficiently important\\ninterest to justify setting any [gift] limit at all.” Zimmerman v. City of Austin, 881 F.3d 378, 386\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\n(5th Cir. 2018). But even if we required a showing that its decision to remove this exception\\nfurthers its anticorruption interest, Kentucky has done so.\\n\\n As KLEC’s representative explained, removing the de minimis exception—and the\\nadministrative blunders that accompanied it—helps prevent the appearance of corruption. To be\\nsure, KLEC’s representative admitted that the de minimis exception “had not developed into an\\nethics problem,” but that it was an “administrative” and “public perception” problem. R. 47-1,\\nPageID 881–82. Administering the exception led to “incorrect reports that include[d] legislators\\nwho didn’t even attend events or didn’t eat or drink at the events but they’re getting their name\\npublicized.” Id. at PageID 883. Faced with this issue, the legislature decided to entirely close\\nthis “loophole in the law” by “paint[ing] a brighter line for the General Assembly and the public\\nto know that legislators are not taking anything of value.” Id. at PageID 826–27.\\n\\n Kentucky is not an outlier. Both before the district court and on appeal, Kentucky cited\\nthe laws and experiences of other states to justify the removal of the de minimis exception. See\\nWagner v. FEC, 793 F.3d 1, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (noting the relevance of the\\n“experience of states with and without similar laws” to this inquiry). The Commonwealth took\\nthis action after KLEC recommended it, grounding the recommendation on its research of\\ngovernmental ethics issues, a task assigned to it by statute. See § 6.666(15). Its research yielded\\nplentiful and detailed newspaper accounts from across the country “supporting inferences of\\nimpropriety” arising from gifts of value, Shrink, 528 U.S. at 393, including several that discussed\\nhow lobbyists and their employers skirted de minimis exceptions with tickets to sporting events,\\nrounds of golf, and cigars. R. 64-5, PageID 3361. In addition to its recommendation, KLEC\\ncompiled these news articles into Ethics Reporters, which it disseminated monthly to all\\nlegislators, lobbyists, and employers of lobbyists. R. 64-5, PageID 3354–67.1\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1The legislators cross-appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to strike these newsletters, arguing\\nthat the clips of several newspaper articles within them constitutes “inadmissible hearsay and was unauthenticated.”\\nBut because the newsletters were authenticated, see R. 82, PageID 4163–64, and plainly not offered for the truth of\\nthe matter asserted, they are not hearsay. See Biegas v. Quickway Carriers, Inc., 573 F.3d 365, 379 (6th Cir. 2009).\\nRather, they were offered as evidence of what was before the legislature at the time, and for their effect on KLEC’s\\nrecommendation to the legislature.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n And just as in Wagner, further evidence comes from other states enacting their own gift\\nbans that do not have de minimis exceptions. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. § 112.313(2); Haw. Rev.\\nStat. Ann. § 84-11; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 10A.071(2); S.C. Code Ann. § 2-17-80(A); Vt. Stat. Ann.\\ntit. 2, §§ 261(6)(a), 266(a)(2); Wisc. Stat. Ann. §§ 19.42, 19.45, 19.56(3). “The fact that many\\nstates have such laws shows that [Kentucky] is no outlier,” Wagner, 793 F.3d at 16, and that\\nother states believe gifts of value create a threat of corruption or its appearance.\\n\\n * * *\\n\\n Tellingly, perhaps, of the 138 members of the Kentucky General Assembly, only one\\nmember—the member who initiated this lawsuit—voted against the 2014 amendments\\nthat enacted the regular session ban and removed the de minimis exception.\\nKentucky Legislature, 2014 Regular Session Voting Record – HB 28,\\nhttps://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/14rs/hb28.html. Just as the overwhelming seventy-four-\\npercent statewide vote in favor of the contribution limits in Shrink helped demonstrate the state’s\\ninterest, 528 U.S. at 394, so too this landslide vote. Had the legislators made a showing of their\\nown to cast doubt on the evidence presented here, Kentucky might have needed to show more.\\nId. But on this record, Kentucky adequately illustrated that these ethics provisions further the\\nsufficiently important interest of preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.\\n\\n 2. Are the challenged provisions closely drawn?\\n\\n To clear the second hurdle of the closely drawn test, a state must show it employed\\n“means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms.”\\nMcCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 197 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25). This requires “a fit that is not\\nnecessarily perfect, but reasonable; that represents not necessarily the single best disposition but\\none whose scope is ‘in proportion to the interest served,’ . . . that employs not necessarily the\\nleast restrictive means but . . . a means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.” Id. at\\n218 (quoting Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480 (1989)). In conducting\\nsuch review, of course, we owe “proper deference to a [legislative] determination of the need for\\na prophylactic rule [to address] the evil of potential corruption.” Nat’l Conservative Political\\nAction Comm., 470 U.S. at 500; Nat’l Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. at 210.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\n Contribution Ban. This provision prohibits a legislator from accepting a campaign\\ncontribution from a lobbyist. § 6.767(2). Not long ago, the Fourth Circuit applied closely drawn\\nscrutiny and upheld a complete ban on campaign contributions by lobbyists. Preston, 660 F.3d\\nat 729, 735–36. There, plaintiff argued that the provision was not closely drawn because the\\nstate “could have allowed for . . . small donations . . . without undermining its interest in\\npreventing actual and perceived corruption.” Id. at 736. The court rejected this argument,\\nreasoning that, in response to recent scandals, the legislature made the “rational judgment that a\\ncomplete ban was necessary as a prophylactic to prevent not only actual corruption but also [its]\\nappearance.” Id. The court also emphasized that the ban aimed only at lobbyists “who,\\nexperience has taught, are especially susceptible to political corruption.” Id. at 737. “This is\\nboth an important and a legitimate legislative judgment that ‘[c]ourts simply are not in the\\nposition to second-guess,’ especially ‘where corruption is the evil feared.’” Id. at 736 (citation\\nomitted).\\n\\n The Fourth Circuit’s reasoning persuades us. Lobbyists’ role undoubtedly sharpens the\\nrisk of corruption and its appearance. See Wagner, 793 F.3d at 22; see Eric Lipton & Ben\\nProtess, Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills, N.Y. Times, May 23, 2013. To be\\nsure, “[t]he role of a lobbyist is both legitimate and important to legislation and government\\ndecisionmaking, but by its very nature, it is prone to corruption and therefore especially\\nsusceptible to public suspicion of corruption.” Preston, 660 F.3d at 737. Indeed, contributions\\nand gifts from lobbyists and others who have a “particularly direct financial interest in these\\nofficials’ policy decisions pose a heightened risk of actual and apparent corruption, and merit\\nheightened government regulation.” Ognibene, 671 F.3d at 188; see Preston, 660 F.3d at 737\\n(“Any payment made by a lobbyist to a public official, whether a campaign contribution or\\nsimply a gift, calls into question the propriety of the relationship, and therefore North Carolina\\ncould rationally adjudge that it should ban all payments.”).\\n\\n We find no merit to the legislators’ argument that only recent scandals justify a\\ncontribution ban. Courts do not require a recent scandal; indeed, the Supreme Court views\\ncontribution limits as preventative measures. Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 356 (noting the\\npreventative nature of direct contribution restrictions because “the scope of such pernicious\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\npractices can never be reliably ascertained”). We do not require Kentucky “to experience the\\nvery problem it fears before taking appropriate prophylactic measures.” Ognibene, 671 F.3d at\\n188.\\n\\n Yes, a total ban presents a significant restriction. But under the closely drawn standard,\\n“[e]ven a ‘significant interference with protected rights’ of political association may be\\nsustained.” McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 197 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While\\nthis ban dispenses with one means a legislator has to gather funds, it leaves open others less\\nsusceptible to the same risk of corruption or its appearance, and thus survives closely drawn\\nscrutiny. See Preston, 660 F.3d at 734 (finding that the ban “serv[ed] only as a channeling\\ndevice, cutting off the avenue of association and expression that is most likely to lead to\\ncorruption but allowing numerous other avenues of association and expression”).\\n\\n Regular Session Contribution Ban. This provision broadens the reach of the contribution\\nban; it prohibits a legislator from accepting campaign contributions from employers of lobbyists\\nand PACs, though only during a regular legislative session. § 6.767(3). The district court upheld\\nthe ban, relying primarily on two cases. See Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 715–16 (finding a nearly\\nidentical ban closely drawn because it applied to only two of the “most ubiquitous and powerful\\nplayers in the political arena,” and did “nothing more than place a temporary hold” on the ability\\nto contribute during the time when the risk of corruption is highest); Kimbell, 665 A.2d at 51\\n(finding a ban on contributions by lobbyists during active legislative sessions closely drawn\\nbecause it focused on “a narrow period during which legislators could be, or could appear to be,\\npressured, coerced, or tempted into voting on the basis of cash contributions”). We agree.\\n\\n First, this time-specific ban restricts less than would an absolute ban, Lavin, 689 F.3d at\\n548, and targets the time when the risk of quid pro quo corruption—especially its appearance—is\\nhighest, Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 716. Indeed, contributions to a legislator (or his challenger) when a\\nlegislator is poised to cast a favorable (or unfavorable) vote on a pet bill could cause Kentuckians\\nto question whether the contribution motivated the vote. See id. (“[T]he temptation to exchange\\n‘dollars for political favors’ can be powerful.”). For that reason, we assess this limited ban as\\npermissible. As the Supreme Court emphasized, “the danger of corruption and the appearance of\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\ncorruption apply with equal force to challengers and to incumbents,” justifying “imposing the\\nsame fundraising constraints upon both.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 33 (emphasis added).\\n\\n In addition to the time limitation, the Commonwealth limited the coverage of this ban to\\ntwo of the “most ubiquitous and powerful players in the political arena.” Bartlett, 168 F.3d at\\n716. Though these players can significantly inform the legislative process, “there remain\\npowerful hydraulic pressures at play [that] can cause both legislators and lobbyists to cross the\\nline.” Id. The legislators take issue with the scope of this ban, arguing that it covers “[e]ach and\\nevery PAC,” not just those that employ lobbyists, as was the case in Bartlett. 168 F.3d at 714.\\nBut Kentucky similarly limited the definition of what constitutes a PAC. As we noted over\\ntwenty years ago, the Kentucky General Assembly “explicitly narrow[ed] the definition of\\n‘permanent committee’ to encompass only those organizations which expressly advocate the\\nelection or defeat of clearly identified candidate(s).” Terry, 108 F.3d at 643; see Ky. Rev. Stat.\\nAnn. § 121.015(3)(d).\\n\\n The level of scandal uncovered by Operation BOPTROT, as well as the experiences of\\nother states, provides more than “scant evidence” that lobbyists sometimes turn to employers and\\nPACs to achieve their ends. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 232, overruled on other grounds by Citizens\\nUnited, 558 U.S. 310. Indeed, if we upheld the absolute ban on lobbyist contributions but struck\\ndown this restriction, we would be inviting the very circumvention proscribed by this provision.\\nSee Leake, 525 F.3d at 292. Because this provision “does nothing more than recognize that\\nlobbyists”—and their employers and narrowly-defined PACs—“are paid to persuade legislators,\\nnot to purchase them,” Bartlett, 168 F.3d at 718, and that contributions made by these power\\nplayers during an active session are particularly likely to give rise to the appearance of\\ncorruption, we find this time-limited ban closely drawn.\\n\\n Gift Ban. The gift ban provision prohibits a legislator or his spouse from soliciting,\\naccepting, or agreeing to accept “anything of value” from a lobbyist or his employer. § 6.751(2).\\nWe again see no constitutional problem here. The gift ban does not prevent lobbyists and\\nlegislators from meeting to discuss pressing issues facing Kentuckians. To be sure, it does not\\nforbid any interaction or the utterance of any word between the two. They may associate as\\noften as they wish over a cup of coffee or dinner or baseball game. This law simply requires\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\nthat, if they do, legislators pay their own way. A fair, reasonable way of preventing quid pro quo\\ncorruption and its appearance. Appellant Br. at 31 (noting that legislators receive a $154 per\\ndiem from taxpayer funds during the session for precisely this purpose).\\n\\n In addition, we reject the legislators’ argument that permitting events where all legislators\\nare invited and not requiring reporting of who attended such events makes these provisions\\nunderinclusive. See § 6.611(2)(b)(8); Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656, 1670\\n(2015) (“Underinclusivity creates a First Amendment concern when the State regulates one\\naspect of a problem while declining to regulate a different aspect of the problem that affects its\\nstated interest in a comparable way.”). This exception permits associations and facilitates\\nspeech between lobbyists and legislators without undercutting Kentucky’s stated interest or\\nabridging associational freedoms. Through this carve out, Kentucky encourages interactions that\\nare less likely to raise concerns about actual or apparent corruption. R. 47-1, PageID 785\\n(“[I] think they focused on events to which bipartisan, bicameral groups of legislators were\\ninvited . . . , [which are] much less problematic than a one-on-one dinner . . . where a lobbyist\\npays all the tab and gets that kind of one-on-one time.”). Thus, this provision survives closely\\ndrawn review.\\n\\n Having found these provisions closely drawn, we turn to examine the legislators’ other\\narguments for striking down the gift ban—that it is content based, a violation of their right to\\nequal protection, vague, and overbroad. As to each, we disagree.\\n\\n D. Content-Based Restriction on Speech\\n\\n The legislators argue that the gift ban provision is a content-based restriction because it\\n“targets gifts based on the identity of the giver.” Appellee Br. at 32. But speaker-based bans are\\nnot automatically content based or content neutral. Rather, because “[s]peech restrictions based\\non the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content,” Citizens\\nUnited, 558 U.S. at 340, such laws “demand strict scrutiny when the legislature’s speaker\\npreference reflects a content preference,” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2230 (2015)\\n(quoting Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 658 (1994)); see Nat’l Inst. of Family\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\n& Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2378 (2018). To make this determination, we\\nfollow the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Reed. 135 S. Ct. at 2230.2\\n\\n A law reflects a content preference when it cannot be “justified without reference to the\\ncontent of the regulated speech” or was “adopted by the government ‘because of disagreement\\nwith the message [the speech] conveys.’” Id. at 2227 (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism,\\n491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)). In making this determination, “[t]he government’s purpose is the\\ncontrolling consideration.” Ward, 491 U.S. at 791. “[A] regulation that serves purposes\\nunrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on\\nsome speakers or messages but not others.” See McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 480 (2014)\\n(quoting Ward, 491 U.S. at 791). The gift ban provision passes this test.\\n\\n Again, Kentucky’s purpose was clear: To protect the integrity of the legislative process\\nand avoid the reality or appearance that state legislation was being bought and sold. § 6.606.\\nSuch a purpose reflects a preference for a state legislature that maintains the trust of its citizens,\\nnot for the expression of certain content. See McCullen, 573 U.S. at 480. Nor have the\\nlegislators offered any evidence that the provision was adopted by Kentucky “because of\\ndisagreement with the message [the speech] conveys.” Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2227. It applies to\\ngifts that are “pecuniary or compensatory in value,” regardless of whether they convey any\\nmessage at all.\\n\\n In Reed, the Court discussed speaker-based bans and explained that a law limiting the\\ncontent of newspapers—and only newspapers—could not avoid strict scrutiny “simply because it\\ncould be characterized as speaker based.” 135 S. Ct. at 2230. So too, a “content-based law that\\nrestricted the political speech of all corporations would not become content neutral just because\\nit singled out corporations as a class of speakers.” Id. (citing Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 340–\\n41). Reed, at bottom, teaches us to be wary of speaker-based restrictions that are nothing more\\nthan content-based restrictions in disguise. And wary we are. Kentucky’s gift ban provision,\\n\\n\\n\\n 2Normally, the “first step in the content-neutrality analysis” requires us to determine “whether the law is\\ncontent neutral on its face.” Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2228. Nowhere, however, do the legislators argue that this\\nprovision is facially content based.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\nhowever, serves an anticorruption purpose unrelated to the content of expression and is justified\\nwithout any reference to the content of the gifts regulated. See Ward, 491 U.S. at 791.\\n\\n Since the gift ban provision is content neutral, it is “subject to an intermediate level of\\nscrutiny.” Turner, 512 U.S. at 642. Thus, just as the other First Amendment challenges here, we\\napply closely drawn scrutiny. See Zimmerman, 881 F.3d at 384–85 (rejecting argument that base\\ncontribution limit was content based and applying closely drawn scrutiny). Again, the\\nCommonwealth has demonstrated that the gift ban advances its anticorruption interest and\\nemploys means closely drawn to do so, and therefore survives closely drawn review.\\n\\n E. Equal Protection\\n\\n The district court found that the gift ban violated lobbyists’ right to equal protection\\nbecause “[e]ven though lobbyists and their employers are not part of a suspect class, a law that\\ntreats them differently from other citizens is subject to the highest level of scrutiny when it seeks\\nto suppress their political expression.” R. 122, PageID 4642. It got there by relying on the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), where\\nthe Court held that “[b]ecause the right to engage in political expression is fundamental to our\\nconstitutional system, statutory classifications impinging upon that right must be narrowly\\ntailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.” Id. at 666, overruled on other grounds by\\nCitizens United, 558 U.S. 310.\\n\\n In Citizens United, the Court overruled Austin on the question of whether the government\\nmay, under the First Amendment, suppress political speech “based on the corporate identity of\\nthe speaker.” 558 U.S. at 364. But the Court did not express an intent to overturn Austin’s\\nholding regarding the level of scrutiny applied to political expression, so it remains good law.\\nSee Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864, 879–80 (8th Cir. 2012)\\n(en banc) (explaining that Citizens United did not explicitly overrule the equal protection\\nanalysis in Austin); Riddle v. Hickenlooper, 742 F.3d 922, 928 n.4 (10th Cir. 2014) (same). That\\nsaid, several of our sister circuits express doubt as to whether Austin demands strict scrutiny in\\ncases involving equal protection challenges to contribution limits.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\n The D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, found Austin distinguishable and declined to follow it.\\nWagner, 793 F.3d at 32. It held that closely drawn scrutiny applied to an equal protection\\nchallenge to a contractor contribution ban, rejecting the “doctrinal gambit” that “would require\\nstrict scrutiny notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s determination that the ‘closely drawn’\\nstandard is the appropriate one under the First Amendment.” Id. It noted that, although the\\nSupreme Court “has on occasion applied strict scrutiny in examining equal protection challenges\\nin cases involving First Amendment rights, it has done so only when a First Amendment analysis\\nwould itself have required such scrutiny.” Id. Such was the case in Austin, where the Court\\napplied strict scrutiny to determine whether restrictions on independent expenditures by\\ncorporations passed muster under the equal protection clause. Austin, 494 U.S. at 655–56. To be\\nsure, the plaintiffs in Wagner could find “no case in any court ‘in which an equal-protection\\nchallenge to contribution limits succeeded where a First Amendment one did not.’” Wagner,\\n793 F.3d at 32–33 (citation omitted).\\n\\n In Riddle, although the Tenth Circuit applied the closely drawn test to an equal protection\\nchallenge to contribution limits that treated candidates differently if they were unopposed for\\ntheir nominations only “[f]or the sake of argument,” the court recognized that, in the First\\nAmendment context, the Supreme Court has applied closely drawn scrutiny to contribution\\nlimits. Riddle, 742 F.3d at 927–28. In his concurrence, then-Judge Gorsuch noted that “the\\nCourt has yet to apply strict scrutiny to contribution limit challenges—employing [closely drawn\\nscrutiny] instead,” and questioned whether “an interest [can] become more potent (‘more’\\nfundamental) when viewed through the lens of equal protection analysis?” Id. at 931 (Gorsuch,\\nJ., concurring).\\n\\n The Second Circuit too summarily rejected an equal protection challenge to a\\ncontribution limit where it already had held that the limit did not constitute viewpoint\\ndiscrimination under the First Amendment. Ognibene, 671 F.3d at 193 n.19. And in rejecting\\nthe same sort of challenge, one district court stated that it was not surprising such arguments had\\nfailed because the Supreme Court’s precedent “hold[s] that it makes no difference whether a\\nchallenge to the disparate treatment of speakers or speech is framed under the First Amendment\\nor the Equal Protection Clause.” Illinois Liberty PAC v. Madigan, 902 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1126\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\n(N.D. Ill. 2012) (collecting Supreme Court cases); see City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.,\\n475 U.S. 41, 55 n.4 (1986) (“As should be apparent from our preceding discussion, respondents\\ncan fare no better under the Equal Protection Clause than under the First Amendment itself.”).\\n\\n As for this circuit, we’ve not yet considered the level of scrutiny to apply. From our\\nreview of other circuits’ precedent, however, we agree that the best reading of Austin, especially\\nconsidering the scope of its application, confines its holding to cases in which the First\\nAmendment analysis itself requires strict scrutiny. See Wagner, 793 F.3d at 32. We have found\\nno case where the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny in examining an equal protection\\nchallenge when the First Amendment analysis itself did not require such scrutiny, see id., and\\njust as our sister circuits, we decline to be the first. Thus, we hold that closely drawn scrutiny,\\nthe tier of scrutiny applied to the First Amendment challenge, also applies to the equal protection\\nchallenge. The gift ban withstands such scrutiny.\\n\\n F. Vagueness\\n\\n To succeed on a vagueness challenge, a plaintiff must show either that the law (1) “fails\\nto provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it\\nprohibits”; or (2) “authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”\\nJohnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2566 (2015). For laws that interfere with the right of\\nfree speech or association, “a more stringent vagueness test should apply.” Platt v. Bd. of\\nComm’rs on Grievances & Discipline of Ohio Supreme Court, 894 F.3d 235, 246 (6th Cir.\\n2018). But we do not require “perfect clarity and precise guidance.” Holder v. Humanitarian\\nLaw Project, 561 U.S. 1, 19 (2010). On appeal, plaintiffs challenge only “the vague so called\\n‘catchall’ provision”—§ 6.611(2)(a)(14), not the entire definition of “anything of value” in\\n§ 6.611(2)(a).\\n\\n Fair Notice. When determining whether a law provides fair notice, “in the absence of\\nstate court guidance, we examine ‘the words of the ordinance itself.’” Platt, 894 F.3d at 246\\n(quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 110 (1972)). The catch-all provision reads:\\n“[a]ny other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a person, or the primary\\nsignificance of which is economic gain.” § 6.811(2)(a)(14). A common dictionary defines\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\n“value” as “the monetary worth of something,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary\\nUnabridged 2530 (2002), and “pecuniary” nearly the same, id. at 1663. And “compensatory” is\\ndefined as “serving as compensation,” with “compensation” defined as “the act or action of\\nmaking up, making good, or counterbalancing,” or “payment for value received or service\\nrendered.” Id. at 463.\\n\\n No vagueness plagues any of these terms. Laws marked by “flexibility and reasonable\\nbreadth, rather than meticulous specificity,” are not inevitably vague, see Platt, 894 F.3d at 246–\\n47, and we do not require—or expect—“mathematical certainty from our language.” Grayned,\\n408 U.S. at 110. A person of ordinary intelligence would know that this language—used in both\\nlegal and common parlance—bars them from accepting or soliciting money or a gift that serves\\nas payment for a service provided. See Platt, 894 F.3d at 247. And the additional phrase “or the\\nprimary significance of which is economic gain” does not muddy the waters.\\n\\n Here, though the catch-all provision is marked by flexibility and reasonable breadth, we\\nthink “it is clear what the ordinance as a whole prohibits.” Deja Vu of Cincinnati, L.L.C. v.\\nUnion Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 411 F.3d 777, 798 (6th Cir. 2005). Even if these “words leave some\\nwiggle room,” Platt, 894 F.3d at 247, the Ethics Code provides multiple mechanisms to\\ndetermine whether the gift is permissible. See § 6.827(1) (requiring lobbyists and their\\nemployers to deliver a copy of reported expenditures to the legislator at least ten days before\\nfiling a report with KLEC); see § 6.827(2) (providing procedure for resolving any discrepancies\\nin report). Most importantly, § 6.681 allows a legislator or lobbyist to seek an advisory opinion\\nto clarify any ambiguities, admittedly not done here. See Platt, 894 F.3d at 247.\\n\\n Nor do KLEC’s representative’s answers to hypotheticals posed in interrogatories\\ndemonstrate vagueness here. Id. at 249–50. “Hypotheticals are a favorite tool of those bringing\\nvagueness challenges,” as almost all statutes are “susceptible to clever hypotheticals testing its\\nreach.” Id. at 251. The district court and the legislators seized on one exchange where KLEC’s\\nrepresentative suggested that “a bottle of water” offered during a meeting to discuss a pending\\nbill could be a “possible” thing of value that would violate the ban, and that the legislator could\\n“call [him] and ask [him] if he should accept under the circumstances.” R. 47-1, PageID 668–71.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\n Just as in Platt, “[s]pecific facts matter,” and it would have been irresponsible of the\\nrepresentative to respond definitively. See 894 F.3d at 248. Though a bottle of water does not\\nimmediately come to mind when one reads the catch-all provision (and the rest of § 6.611(2)(a)-\\n(b)), it could possibly fall under the provision based on the surrounding circumstances.\\nResponding, then, as here, that the situation would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by\\nlooking at the surrounding circumstances shows prudence, not vagueness. See id. at 251.\\n\\n The legislators offered another example to show vagueness. An employer of a lobbyist\\ninvited Senator Schickel to tour a factory, but he “declined due to a legitimate fear that being lent\\na hard hat to tour the facility, being subjected to heat for the building, or stopping to use the\\nrestroom facilities in the factory during the tour could run afoul” of this rule. Appellee Br. at 44.\\nBut this is a specious argument considering the detailed lists including, § 6.611(2)(a), and\\nexcluding, § 6.611(2)(b), items from “anything of value.” The catch-all provision’s plain\\nlanguage and the means to resolve questions about its coverage, including advisory opinions,\\nprovide fair notice of the conduct it prohibits.\\n\\n Arbitrary Enforcement. To determine whether a statute creates opportunities for arbitrary\\nenforcement, we ask whether the catch-all provision “provide[s] explicit standards guiding [its]\\nenforcement.” United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Sw. Ohio Reg’l\\nTransit Auth., 163 F.3d 341, 359 (6th Cir. 1998). Just as in challenges to similarly-worded gift\\nbans on lobbyists and others, we hold that explicit standards guide the enforcement of this\\nprovision. See Fla. Ass’n, 525 F.3d at 1075 n.1 (upholding lobbyist gift ban that defined\\n“expenditure” as “a payment, distribution, loan, advance, reimbursement, deposit, or anything of\\nvalue made by a lobbyist or principal for the purpose of lobbying”); Kimbell, 665 A.2d at 82 n.1\\n(“anything else of value”); see also Yamada v. Snipes, 786 F.3d 1182, 1188–89 (9th Cir. 2015)\\n(rejecting vagueness challenge to “expenditure” definition that included “anything of value”); Vt.\\nRight to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 758 F.3d 118, 130 (2d Cir. 2014) (same). In fact, the\\nstatutes in Florida Association and Kimbell provided far fewer examples of what the term\\n“expenditure” did and did not include—nothing close to the twenty-five-plus subparts here. See\\nFla. Stat. Ann. §§ 11.045(1)(c), 112.3215(1)(d); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, § 261(5).\\n\\n We find the catch-all provision not void for vagueness.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 25\\n\\n\\n G. Overbreadth and Chilling Effect\\n\\n “A law is overbroad under the First Amendment if it ‘reaches a substantial number of\\nimpermissible applications’ relative to the law’s legitimate sweep.” East Brooks Books, Inc. v.\\nShelby Cty., 588 F.3d 360, 366 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). A plaintiff making an\\noverbroad challenge may not “leverag[e] a few alleged unconstitutional applications of the\\nstatute into a ruling invalidating the law in all of its applications.” Speet v. Schuette, 726 F.3d\\n867, 878 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Connection Distrib. Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321, 340 (6th Cir.\\n2009) (en banc)). Rather, a plaintiff “must demonstrate from the text of the statute and from\\nactual fact that a substantial number of instances exist in which the law cannot be applied\\nconstitutionally.” Id.\\n\\n Much of our analysis here overlaps with our vagueness analysis. In finding the law\\noverbroad, the district court once again relied on the same hypotheticals discussed previously.\\nBut, again, this provision does not sweep so broadly. As before, plaintiffs provide no evidence\\nof any person who has ever been charged with violating this provision for (i) receiving a bottle of\\nwater; (ii) walking into a heated or cooled room; or even (iii) using the restroom in a lobbyist’s\\noffice. Indeed, KLEC has never interpreted these “gifts” as “[some]thing of value” to be\\n“reported, limited, or prohibited.” In the unlikely event that KLEC ever charges anyone for (or\\nthreatens enforcement of) such conduct, an as-applied challenge would be appropriate.\\n\\n We agree with the Commonwealth’s argument that “[t]he gift ban . . . prevent[s]\\nlobbyists from paying for one-on-one or small group interactions with legislators, to avoid the\\nreality or appearance that important state legislation is being bought and sold in private.”\\nAppellant Br. at 31–32. Even in First Amendment cases, facial invalidation is “strong medicine\\nthat is not to be casually employed.” Connection Distrib., 557 F.3d at 336 (quoting United\\nStates v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 293 (2008)). Given the plainly legitimate sweep of these\\nprovisions to sports tickets, cars, wine, vacations, and art, the gift ban is not overbroad.\\n\\f Nos. 17-6456/6505 Schickel, et al. v. Dilger, et al. Page 26\\n\\n\\n V. CONCLUSION\\n\\n Kentucky’s legislature acted to protect itself and its citizens from the damaging effects of\\ncorruption. Because these laws are closely drawn to further Kentucky’s anticorruption interest,\\nthey pass constitutional muster. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the court’s judgment upholding the\\nconstitutionality of § 6.767(3), and the dismissal of § 121.150(13) on standing grounds. We\\nVACATE the district court’s judgment as to § 6.811(4), § 6.811(5), § 6.811(6), and § 6.811(7),\\nand REMAND with instructions to dismiss those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.\\nWe REVERSE the court’s judgment as to § 6.751(2) and § 6.767(2), VACATE the permanent\\ninjunction in its entirety, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2098,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4625269,"string":"4,625,269"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone Dexter CHRISTIAN, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Tyrone Christian"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-31"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-1799"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Rogers, Thapar\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888639/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"030concurrence\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888640/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"ROGERS, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0111p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 17-1799\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n TYRONE DEXTER CHRISTIAN, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.\\n No. 1:15-cr-00172-1—Robert J. Jonker, Chief District Judge.\\n\\n Reargued En Banc: March 20, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 31, 2019\\n\\n Before: COLE, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GILMAN, GIBBONS, ROGERS,\\n SUTTON,GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, STRANCH, DONALD, THAPAR, BUSH,\\n LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nREARGUED EN BANC: Lucille A. Jewel, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, Knoxville,\\nTennessee, for Appellant. Jennifer L. McManus, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,\\nGrand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: Lucille A. Jewel,\\nWilliam A. Beasley, Benjamin A. Johnson, Benjamin K.P. Merry, UNIVERSITY OF\\nTENNESSEE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Jennifer L. McManus, Timothy P. Verhey,\\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n\\n ROGERS, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which GIBBONS, SUTTON,\\nGRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, and\\nMURPHY, JJ., joined, and WHITE, J., joined in the judgment. THAPAR, J. (pp. 12–19),\\ndelivered a separate concurring opinion in which NALBANDIAN, MURPHY, and READLER,\\nJJ., joined. WHITE, J. (pg. 20), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment and in\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 2\\n\\n\\nPart I of the dissent. GILMAN, J. (pp. 21–44), delivered a separate dissenting opinion in which\\nCOLE, C.J., MOORE, CLAY, STRANCH, and DONALD, JJ., joined, and WHITE, J., joined in\\npart.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Based on a five-page-long search-warrant affidavit—which\\nincluded evidence from a confidential informant and other sources, a controlled buy, and direct\\npolice-officer surveillance—a magistrate determined that there was probable cause to search\\n618 Grandville Avenue, Tyrone Christian’s home, for evidence of drug trafficking. That search\\nuncovered a large amount of heroin, some cocaine and marijuana, and two loaded guns.\\nConvicted of various drug and firearm crimes, Christian argues on appeal that the search was not\\nsupported by probable cause. Christian questions each factual assertion in the affidavit as\\ninsufficient to show probable cause, while the Government contends that a common-sense\\nexamination of the totality of the circumstances, in light of the deference that a court owes to\\nwarrant-issuing magistrates, is required by cases like Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), and\\nDistrict of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018). For the reasons that follow, the\\ndistrict court properly denied Christian’s suppression motion.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n On September 3, 2015, Officer Thomas Bush, a law enforcement officer for the Grand\\nRapids Police Department, submitted an affidavit in support of a search warrant for the residence\\nof suspected drug trafficker Tyrone Christian at 618 Grandville Avenue in Grand Rapids,\\nMichigan. The affidavit provided the following information in support of Officer Bush’s belief\\nthat there was probable cause to search Christian’s home: (1) Christian had a history of drug\\ntrafficking at 618 Grandville, which included drug-related arrests after two separate raids in 2009\\nand 2011, along with four prior felony convictions for drug-related offenses between 1996 and\\n2011; (2) a “credible and reliable” informant had contacted law enforcement in December 2014\\nto notify them that Christian was dealing drugs; (3) law enforcement successfully conducted a\\ncontrolled buy from Christian in January 2015; (4) between May and September 2015, four\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 3\\n\\n\\ndifferent subjects told law enforcement that Christian was dealing drugs and that they had\\npersonally purchased drugs from him; (5) law enforcement had established surveillance at 618\\nGrandville and observed a man named Rueben Thomas “walk away from the area of [the\\nresidence] and leave the area in a vehicle,” after which officers stopped Thomas and discovered\\nheroin in his car; and (6) Thomas subsequently “admitted that he had recently been at an address\\non [Grandville Avenue],” but he “denied being at [Christian’s residence] contrary to\\nobservations of the law enforcement officers.”\\n\\n A magistrate judge approved the warrant, and police officers conducted a drug raid at\\nChristian’s home just after midnight on September 4, 2015. During the raid, officers seized\\ncocaine, marijuana, over 80 grams of heroin, a cutting agent, and two loaded guns. The\\nGovernment charged Christian with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, being a felon\\nin possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.\\n\\n Christian moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the September 3 search warrant.\\nThe district court denied the motion, determining that the affidavit provided sufficient\\ninformation to establish probable cause and that in any event the Leon good-faith exception\\nwould apply regardless of the probable cause determination. A jury convicted Christian on all\\ncounts, and the district court sentenced Christian to 210 months in prison.\\n\\n Christian now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that\\nthe affidavit did not establish probable cause and that the Leon good-faith exception to the\\nexclusionary rule should not apply. He also challenges the district court’s admission of\\ntestimony about a jail call that occurred between Thomas and Thomas’s girlfriend, Tanisha\\nEdwards, before Christian was arrested. Edwards testified during trial that she told Thomas that\\nChristian “got the groceries out” of their house, where the “groceries” referred to a gun and\\ndrugs. The Government introduced the testimony to help explain why law enforcement later\\nfound a gun and drugs buried in the backyard behind the home of Christian’s mother.\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 4\\n\\n\\n II.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n The search-warrant affidavit at issue here provided an ample basis for probable cause,\\nand the question is really not even close. The affidavit first outlined Christian’s extensive history\\nwith drugs—four felony drug convictions from 1996, 2002, 2009, and 2011, at least two of\\nwhich were for drug trafficking. In 2009 and 2011, search warrants executed at Christian’s\\nhome, 618 Grandville, the same place searched here, uncovered evidence of drug trafficking that\\neach time resulted in Christian’s arrest.\\n\\n The affidavit next detailed the reasons why officers believed that Christian had gone back\\ninto business. In December 2014, a “credible and reliable informant” advised Officer Bush, the\\naffiant, that Christian was again dealing drugs. The informant also provided information about\\nother traffickers, including “names, nicknames, phone numbers, residences utilized by the drug\\ntraffickers and information regarding specific drug transactions.” Officer Bush independently\\ncorroborated “much of the information provided” by this informant. In January 2015, under the\\ndirection of Officer Bush, the informant executed a controlled purchase of drugs from Christian.\\nIn addition, “[w]ithin the last four months” preceding the search, meaning from May to\\nSeptember of 2015, several other informants stated that “Tyrone Christian is a large scale drug\\ndealer” and that “they [had] purchased large quantities of heroin and crack cocaine from\\nChristian at [his residence] in the last four to five months.”\\n\\n That brings us to September 3, 2015, the day of the search, when, according to the\\naffidavit, officers established surveillance “at 618 Grandville Avenue.” The officers observed\\nRueben Thomas “walk away from the area of 618 Grandville Avenue and leave the area in a\\nvehicle.” After stopping him for a traffic violation, officers found “approximately 20 grams of\\nheroin” in the form of “‘chunk[s]’ that appeared to have been removed from a larger portion of\\nheroin.” Thomas denied having been at 618 Grandville but admitted having been at another\\naddress on that street. Crucially, the affidavit recounted that Thomas’s denial was “contrary to\\nobservations of the law enforcement officers.”\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 5\\n\\n\\n Viewing the “totality of the circumstances,” Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 244 (2013),\\nthrough the “lens of common sense,” as the Supreme Court has instructed, id. at 248, the\\nconclusion is inescapable: there was probable cause to believe that a search of 618 Grandville\\nwould uncover evidence of drug trafficking. Most readers of the affidavit would have been\\nsurprised if it did not.\\n\\n Indeed, one element of the affidavit was independently sufficient for probable cause: the\\nsurveillance of Rueben Thomas. Christian argues that there was no “nexus” between Thomas\\nand 618 Grandville because the affidavit states merely that officers saw Thomas “walk away\\nfrom the area of 618 Grandville Avenue,” rather than entering or leaving that residence. But that\\nselective, out-of-context reading is contradicted even by other parts of the affidavit, which later\\nstates that “Rueben Thomas . . . denied being at [the residence], contrary to observations of the\\nlaw enforcement officers.” (Emphasis added.) While this is not a direct statement that Thomas\\nwas seen entering or leaving 618 Grandville, the law does not require such a direct statement.\\nIndeed, our precedents require us to eschew such a formal requirement. “Affidavits are not\\nrequired to use magic words[.]” United States v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 975 (6th Cir. 2000) (en\\nbanc). Because our job is not to reweigh the assertions in an affidavit but to ask whether the\\nmagistrate had a substantial basis for his conclusion, United States v. Perry, 864 F.3d 412, 415\\n(6th Cir. 2017), the later phrase in the affidavit cannot be read out of existence. Rather, the\\ndeferential nature of our review means that we should take that later statement—i.e., that\\nThomas’s denying that he was at 618 Grandville was “contrary to observations of the law\\nenforcement officers”—to reconcile any doubt about where the officers saw Thomas walk away\\nfrom.\\n\\n Under that proper view of the affidavit, and paying the appropriate “great deference” to\\nthe magistrate’s probable-cause determination, Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, the surveillance evidence\\nprovided a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Argument to the\\ncontrary is unavailing. Any possible contradiction between “from the area of” and “contrary to\\nobservations of the officers” is more readily attributable to the “haste of a criminal investigation”\\nunder which officers often draft an affidavit supporting a search warrant. See id. at 235. Such\\nhaste was certainly present here: Officer Bush applied for and received the warrant on the same\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 6\\n\\n\\nday of the purportedly infirm surveillance and search. To boot, police officers are mostly non-\\nlawyers who must draft search-warrant affidavits “on the basis of nontechnical, common-sense\\njudgments.” Id. at 235–36. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps the affiant could have been\\nmore precise. But our precedents do not require such an exacting degree of specificity. For\\nexample, in our recent published opinion in United States v. Tagg, 886 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018),\\nwe held that probable cause existed to search the defendant’s home for child pornography despite\\nthe supporting documents’ failure to state that the defendant had actually clicked on or viewed an\\nonline file containing child pornography. Id. at 585–90. In doing so, we explained that probable\\ncause is not the same thing as proof. See id. at 589–90. Likewise, the affidavit here need not\\nhave definitively stated that Thomas was seen leaving 618 Grandville. Rather, it need only have\\n“allege[d] facts that create a reasonable probability” that he did. See id at 589. From there, the\\nremaining inferences needed to connect 618 Grandville to Christian’s drug trafficking are quite\\nstraightforward, given Christian’s history of dealing drugs and the officers’ finding heroin in\\nThomas’s car. Under a common-sense reading of the affidavit, then, its description of the 618\\nGrandville surveillance easily exceeds the “degree of suspicion,” id. at 586, needed to establish\\nprobable cause.\\n Moreover, the officers who saw Thomas were assigned to “establish[] [surveillance] at\\n618 Grandville Avenue,” not the entire area around it. Assuming those officers were doing their\\njobs, the fact that they saw Thomas at all probably means that he was very near 618 Grandville.\\nAt the very least, that would be far from an arbitrary inference for a magistrate to draw. In\\naddition, the heroin found in Thomas’s car appeared to “have been removed from a larger\\nportion of heroin.” These facts further supported the magistrate’s determination that there was\\nprobable cause to believe that evidence of drug dealing would be found at 618 Grandville.\\n\\n The affidavit hardly relies alone on the Thomas surveillance, however. There is also\\nChristian’s lengthy history of dealing drugs from 618 Grandville, the controlled purchase from\\n618 Grandville, and the numerous tips that Christian was recently dealing large quantities of\\ndrugs from 618 Grandville, all of which provide further evidence still that probable cause\\nexisted. When it comes to probable cause, “the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts—\\nespecially when the parts are viewed in isolation.” See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 588 (citing United\\nStates v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277–78 (2002)). Even if each of these additional items would not\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 7\\n\\n\\nsuffice to establish probable cause on its own, each factual allegation—whether ultimately\\ndeficient or not—is still a relevant data point in the “totality of the circumstances” constellation,\\nrather than an independent thing to be lined up and shot down one by one. As in Wesby, where\\nthe Supreme Court firmly repudiated the Court of Appeals’ attempt to isolate and explain away\\neach piece of evidence, here too “the totality of the circumstances gave the officers plenty of\\nreasons,” 138 S. Ct. at 589, to believe that there was evidence of drug trafficking in Christian’s\\nhome.\\n Probable cause therefore existed, and it is not a close call. The opposite conclusion can\\nbe reached only by engaging in the kind of “hypertechnical[,] . . . line-by-line scrutiny,” United\\nStates v. Woosley, 361 F.3d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 2004), of the affidavit explicitly forbidden by the\\nSupreme Court, see Gates, 462 U.S. at 235–36, 245 n.14. In Wesby, the Court explained that\\n“this kind of divide-and-conquer approach is improper,” because “[a] factor viewed in isolation\\nis often more ‘readily susceptible to an innocent explanation’ than one viewed as part of a\\ntotality.” 138 S. Ct. at 589 (quoting Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274). That is the case here too, where\\nalone some parts of the affidavit might be criticized but taken together they point clearly to one\\nconclusion: that Christian was dealing drugs from 618 Grandville.\\n\\n We are accordingly compelled to hold that there was probable cause in this case,\\nespecially given the undemanding character of the probable-cause standard and the deferential\\nnature of our review. Probable cause “requires only a probability or substantial chance of\\ncriminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.” Tagg, 886 F.3d at 585 (quoting\\nWesby, 138 S. Ct. at 586). Time and again the Supreme Court has emphasized that “[p]robable\\ncause ‘is not a high bar’” to clear. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 586 (quoting Kaley v. United States,\\n571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014)). Where, as here, a magistrate has issued a search warrant based on\\nprobable cause, we “do[] not write on a blank slate.” Tagg, 886 F.3d at 586. Rather, the\\nmagistrate’s probable-cause determination “should be paid great deference,” Gates, 462 U.S. at\\n236 (quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419 (1969)), and we overturn that decision\\nonly “if the magistrate arbitrarily exercised his or her authority,” United States v. Brown,\\n732 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 478 (6th Cir.\\n2001)). We are “not permitted to attempt a de novo review of probable cause.” Tagg, 886 F.3d\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 8\\n\\n\\nat 586 (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 238–39; United States v. King, 227 F.3d 732, 739 (6th Cir.\\n2000)).\\n\\n The conclusion that probable cause existed to search Christian’s home is compelled,\\nmoreover, by our recent published decision in United States v. Hines, 885 F.3d 919 (6th Cir.\\n2018), in which we emphasized the importance of the totality-of-the-circumstances approach:\\n“Not all search warrant affidavits include the same ingredients,” we said before recognizing that\\n“[i]t is the mix that courts review to decide whether evidence generated from the search may be\\nused or must be suppressed.” Id. at 921–22. The affidavit at issue in Hines, like the one here,\\nwas substantial. Both included, among other things, recent evidence of drug-related activity:\\nthere, a confidential informant’s statement that one day earlier he had seen drugs at the\\nsubsequently searched home; here, the officers’ finding heroin in Thomas’s car after having\\nobserved his leaving 618 Grandville. But the takeaway from Hines most salient here is\\nmethodological, not analogical: Hines requires us to look holistically at what the affidavit does\\nshow, instead of focusing on what the affidavit does not contain, or the flaws of each individual\\ncomponent of the affidavit. Doing the former establishes probable cause here. Rejecting\\nprobable cause on the affidavit in this case would therefore fly in the face of Hines, a well-\\nreasoned precedential decision.\\n\\n B.\\n Apart from whether the affidavit contained enough to establish probable cause,\\nChristian’s suppression motion was properly denied because of the good-faith exception of\\nUnited States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Under Leon, the exclusionary rule does not bar from\\nadmission “evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that is\\nsubsequently held to be defective.” Id. at 905. If somehow the affidavit at issue here could be\\ndeemed insufficient to establish probable cause, then this is a case in the very heartland of the\\nLeon exception. Contrary to Christian’s argument, the affidavit was not “bare bones.” We\\nreserve that label for an affidavit that merely “states suspicions, or conclusions, without\\nproviding some underlying factual circumstances regarding veracity, reliability, and basis of\\nknowledge.” United States v. Washington, 380 F.3d 236, 241 n.4 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting\\nUnited States v. Van Shutters, 163 F.3d 331, 337 (6th Cir. 1998)). To further describe the bare-\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 9\\n\\n\\nbones standard is to show why it does not apply here. We have said that, to be considered bare\\nbones, an affidavit must be “so lacking in indicia of probable cause” as to make an officer’s\\n“belief in its existence [ ] objectively unreasonable.” United States v. Laughton, 409 F.3d 744,\\n748 (6th Cir. 2005). In United States v. Williams, 224 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2000), we described\\nhow woefully deficient an affidavit must be before it meets this standard:\\n\\n An example of a “bare bones” affidavit is found in Gates, 462 U.S. at 239, where\\n the Court, pointing to one from Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41 (1933),\\n said, “A sworn statement of an affiant that ‘he has cause to suspect and does\\n believe that’ liquor illegally brought into the United States is located on certain\\n premises will not do.” Another illustration was taken from Aguilar v. Texas, 378\\n U.S. 108 (1964), that “[a]n officer’s statement that ‘affiants have received reliable\\n information from a credible person and believe’ that heroin is stored in a home, is\\n likewise inadequate.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 239. Thus, a “bare bones” affidavit is\\n similar to, if not the same as, a conclusory affidavit. It is “one which states ‘only\\n the affiant’s belief that probable cause existed.’” United States v. Finch, 998 F.2d\\n 349, 353 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Ciammitti, 720 F.2d 927, 932\\n (6th Cir. 1983)).\\n\\nWilliams, 224 F.3d at 533.\\n\\n Although one can split hairs with the affidavit in this case, it is impossible to deny that it\\ncontains factual allegations, not just suspicions or conclusions. Importantly, each factual\\nallegation, regardless of any infirmities, at least purports to link Christian to drug trafficking at\\n618 Grandville. An affidavit need only present “some connection, regardless of how remote it\\nmay have been,” United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 497 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Laughton,\\n409 F.3d at 749–50), or, in other words, establish a “minimally sufficient nexus between the\\nillegal activity and the place to be searched,” United States v. Brown, 828 F.3d 375, 385 (6th\\nCir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591, 596 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc)), to\\navoid the bare-bones designation and thus be one upon which an officer can rely in good faith.\\nThe affidavit here necessarily satisfies this low requirement. To hold otherwise would be to\\nequate the five-page, extensively sourced affidavit here with the short, conclusory, and self-\\nserving ones for which the bare-bones designation ought to be reserved.\\n\\n Our decision in United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2006), is almost\\ncompletely inapposite here. We held there that the affidavit—which recounted only a single,\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 10\\n\\n\\nundated controlled purchase—did not satisfy the good-faith exception. Id. at 486, 488–89.\\nAlthough the affidavit linking 618 Grandville to drug dealing did include information about a\\ncontrolled purchase that Christian contends was stale, any similarity between this case and\\nHython ends there. This case is like Hython only if, engaging in the methodological error\\nforbidden by the Supreme Court in Wesby, one completely ignores most of the affidavit by\\ndiscounting each item one by one. Indeed, Hython by negative inference supports the existence\\nof good-faith reliance here by showing just how unsubstantiated an affidavit must be to fail to\\nqualify under Leon’s good-faith exception.\\n\\n This is a particularly egregious case to misapply the good-faith exception given the utter\\nlack of police wrongdoing. The “exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather\\nthan to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 916. As the Supreme\\nCourt explained in Leon, “the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing\\nevidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search\\nwarrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion.” Id. at 922. This balance supports the\\nprinciple that, as we said in Carpenter, the good-faith exception requires “a less demanding\\nshowing than the ‘substantial basis’ threshold required to prove the existence of probable cause\\nin the first place.” 360 F.3d at 595–96 (quoting United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 195 (4th\\nCir. 2002) (citation omitted)). Refusing to adhere to those decisions in a case like Christian’s\\nwould unduly exalt the Fourth Amendment interest marginally served by deterring nonculpable\\nconduct over the public interest in combatting crime—and would amount to effective disregard\\nof Supreme Court precedent as well as our own.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n Finally, it is questionable to conclude that the district court erred by admitting the\\nchallenged telephone-call evidence. In any event, we may affirm if we can say with “fair\\nassurance” that any such error did not “substantially sway[]” the judgment. Kotteakos v. United\\nStates, 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946). That is the case here. As explained above, the evidence\\nobtained in accordance with the search warrant was properly admitted. Because suppression was\\ncorrectly denied, the jury properly heard, for example, evidence that officers found 70 grams of\\nheroin next to two loaded guns in Christian’s basement and cocaine and marijuana in other parts\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 11\\n\\n\\nof the house, that the DNA found on one of the guns matched Christian’s, and that Christian’s\\ncell phone contained text messages about drug trafficking. Considering that evidence, the phone\\ncall added relatively little: it connected Thomas and Christian, which provided a basis for the\\njury to conclude that Christian had sold drugs to Thomas, and it linked Christian to a third gun.\\nBut even had that evidence not been admitted, no jury could have acquitted Christian on these\\ncharges. The evidence against him was too damning. Admitting the phone-call statements was\\ntherefore harmless.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n The judgment of the district court is affirmed.\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 12\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4402522/\", \"author_raw\": \"ROGERS, Circuit Judge\"}, {\"author\": \"THAPAR, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"THAPAR, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in the majority opinion. There was\\nprobable cause to search Tyrone Christian’s house, and, at the very least, the officers executed\\nthat search in good faith. But because of our precedent, we must ignore critical evidence of\\nwhich the officers undisputedly knew and isolate the good-faith analysis to the four corners of\\nthe affidavit. See United States v. Laughton, 409 F.3d 744, 751–52 (6th Cir. 2005). I write\\nseparately to explain why Laughton’s limit on the good-faith exception conflicts with Supreme\\nCourt precedent and should be overruled.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Officer Thomas Bush’s affidavit included a number of facts linking Christian and his\\nhouse to drug trafficking: (1) Christian had four drug-crime convictions in the past nineteen\\nyears (two of which involved conduct that occurred at his house); (2) a confidential informant\\nhad purchased drugs from Christian at his house nine months earlier; (3) within the past four\\nmonths, several “subjects” told the officers that they had purchased “large quantities” of drugs\\nfrom Christian at his house; and, finally, (4) on the day of the search, officers stopped Rueben\\nThomas after they saw him leave the “area of” Christian’s house and discovered 20 grams of\\nheroin in Thomas’s car. R. 42-1, Pg. ID 114–15. Critically, Thomas’s heroin showed current\\ndrug dealing at Christian’s house, supplementing the older information in Bush’s affidavit. But\\nthe link between Thomas’s heroin and Christian’s house was blurry because the affidavit was\\nvague. The affidavit did not say that the officers saw Thomas interact with Christian or that they\\nsaw Thomas inside Christian’s house—only that they saw him “walk away from the area of”\\nChristian’s house. Id. at 115.\\n\\n Still, the magistrate believed the affidavit was good enough and granted the officers’\\nrequest for a search warrant. After obtaining the warrant, the officers searched Christian’s house\\nand uncovered extensive evidence of drug dealing: marijuana, cocaine, heroin, drug packaging\\nmaterials, and two guns. Based on this evidence, Christian was convicted of possessing a\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 13\\n\\n\\ncontrolled substance with intent to distribute, possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug\\ntrafficking, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.\\n\\n Christian claims the evidence against him should have been suppressed, arguing that the\\nofficers lacked probable cause to search his house and that the good-faith exception to the\\nexclusionary rule does not apply. Because of Laughton, the parties’ good-faith arguments are\\nrestricted to the language of the affidavit. And because that language is vague on a critical\\npoint—the link between Thomas’s heroin and Christian’s house—the parties parse through the\\naffidavit and debate the best interpretation of its language (almost as if they were interpreting a\\nstatute).\\n\\n But uncontroverted evidence shows that on the day of the search, surveilling officers\\ntwice observed Thomas interacting with Christian at Christian’s house. First, Thomas met with\\nChristian for “approximately five minutes” in the driveway of his house. R. 152, Pg. ID 1131–\\n32. Then, later that afternoon, Thomas returned and went inside for about two hours. After he\\nleft, the officers stopped him and discovered the heroin. These facts link Thomas and his heroin\\nto Christian and his house. But, unfortunately, they were left out of the affidavit. The first\\nencounter did not make it into the affidavit at all, and the second one did only in the vague terms\\ndescribed above.\\n\\n Laughton confines us to the words of that vague affidavit in evaluating whether the good-\\nfaith exception applies. We cannot consider the officers’ actual observations or determine the\\nreason those observations did not make it into the affidavit.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Laughton is wrong. To see why, we need to start with first principles. The Fourth\\nAmendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches\\nand seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. But it does not spell out how we are to protect that right.\\nWhen the Fourth Amendment was ratified, the only way to enforce its protections was through\\nprivate tort suits against officers—the exclusionary rule, Section 1983, and Bivens actions did\\nnot yet exist. See Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663, 1676 (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring)\\n(“Historically, the only remedies for unconstitutional searches and seizures were ‘tort suits’ and\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 14\\n\\n\\n‘self-help.’”); Gardner v. Neil, 4 N.C. 104, 104 (1814) (stating that “the action of trespass is the\\nonly proper form of action” for a Fourth Amendment violation); Akhil R. Amar, The Bill of\\nRights as a Constitution, 100 Yale L.J. 1131, 1176–78 (1991); William Baude & James Y. Stern,\\nThe Positive Law Model of the Fourth Amendment, 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1821, 1840 (2016).\\n\\n That changed in 1914 when the Supreme Court first excluded evidence obtained in\\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). The facts in\\nWeeks were extreme: officers, lacking any particularized information or a warrant, broke into\\nthe defendant’s home, took incriminating documents, then returned and took even more. See id.\\nat 386, 393–94. To deter such flagrant misconduct by law enforcement, the Supreme Court\\ncreated the exclusionary rule. Id. at 393–94; see also United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906,\\n908, 916–17 (1984). The underlying premise is that police are less likely to engage in\\nmisconduct if they know that any evidence obtained thereby will be inadmissible at trial.\\n\\n But the Supreme Court has recognized that suppression often comes with its own\\n“substantial” costs—both to the criminal justice system (letting the guilty (and possibly\\ndangerous) go free) and to the truth-seeking process. Leon, 468 U.S. at 907–08. So the Supreme\\nCourt has repeatedly reminded us that suppression should always be “our last resort, not our first\\nimpulse.” Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 140 (2009) (quoting Hudson v. Michigan, 547\\nU.S. 586, 591 (2006)) (internal quotation mark omitted). In turn, several principles constrain the\\napplication of the exclusionary rule. First, exclusion is not an individual right but a rule aimed at\\ndeterrence. Id. at 141. Second, a Fourth Amendment violation is a necessary—but not a\\nsufficient—ground for exclusion. Id. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the value of any\\nfuture police deterrence must outweigh suppression’s “substantial social costs.” Hudson, 547\\nU.S. at 596.\\n\\n Assuming there is a Fourth Amendment violation, how exactly should courts balance the\\ncosts versus the benefits of suppression? Again, the Supreme Court tells us: look at the\\nmisconduct. Exclusion must deter egregious misconduct—misconduct “sufficiently deliberate\\nthat exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth\\nthe price paid by the justice system.” Herring, 555 U.S. at 144. In contrast, when officers act in\\nan objectively reasonable but mistaken manner, exclusion serves no purpose. Leon, 468 U.S. at\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 15\\n\\n\\n919. That is so even if that mistake violated a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Hudson,\\n547 U.S. at 596.\\n\\n In short, the ultimate focus must be on the nature of police misconduct. That conduct\\nmust exhibit “deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights”\\nto trigger the exclusionary rule. Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 238 (2011) (internal\\nquotation marks omitted); Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (adding systemic negligence to the list).\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Of course, focusing on police misconduct does not excuse courts from looking at the\\naffidavit. Indeed, the affidavit is where courts must start. Leon, 468 U.S. at 915. But the\\nultimate inquiry is whether, considering “all of the circumstances,” the officers acted reasonably\\nwhen relying on the blessing of the judge. Herring, 555 U.S. at 145 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at\\n922 n.23). And to make this determination, “we must consider the actions of all the police\\nofficers involved.” Id. at 140 (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 n.24).\\n\\n This is where Laughton went astray. Laughton’s refusal to look beyond the affidavit is,\\nin effect, a judgment that factual omissions are always culpable misconduct. To start, Leon\\nprecludes such an all-or-nothing approach to the exclusionary rule. 468 U.S. at 922 n.23, 923\\nn.24 (explaining that good faith depends on “all of the circumstances”). But more importantly,\\nthe underlying premise is not true—omitted facts usually do not stem from misconduct at all but\\nfrom isolated negligence or the time pressures that officers often face during investigations.\\nIndeed, an officer would have practically no incentive to leave favorable information out of an\\naffidavit. See Hudson, 547 U.S. at 596 (stating “the value of deterrence depends upon the\\nstrength of the incentive to commit the forbidden act”). Doing so would only increase the\\nchance that a magistrate may reject the warrant application and “leav[e] the officer empty-\\nhanded.” United States v. Thomas, 908 F.3d 68, 74–75 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2018).\\n\\n Because there is no nefarious conduct to deter, the best that excluding evidence may do in\\nthis scenario is encourage more careful affidavit drafting. While that is a laudable goal, it is not\\nworth the substantial costs of exclusion. See Herring, 555 U.S. at 141; Hudson, 547 U.S. at 596.\\nThose costs are particularly high in an omitted-facts situation: when an officer in fact reasonably\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 16\\n\\n\\nrelied on the magistrate’s warrant for a search, and that search yielded evidence proving that the\\ndefendant is in fact guilty. Under that scenario, the exclusionary rule cannot “pay its way.”\\nDavis, 564 U.S. at 238 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 919).\\n\\n The Supreme Court’s instruction to focus on culpability is enough to show that the good-\\nfaith analysis must consider facts that are not included in the affidavit. But the Supreme Court\\nhas been even more explicit. In Sheppard, an officer under severe time pressure used the wrong\\nwarrant application form for his search (a form for drugs rather than murder). Massachusetts v.\\nSheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 986 (1984). The magistrate judge explained that edits were necessary\\nbut only made some of them; as a result, the warrant still authorized only a search for drugs. Id.\\nat 986–87. Despite the obvious error, the Court held that the good-faith exception applied. In\\ndoing so, it rejected the argument that the officers’ reliance on a facially invalid warrant\\nundermined good faith. Given the circumstances, “[t]he officers . . . took every step that could\\nreasonably be expected of them.” Id. at 987–89. Among other things, they thoroughly\\ninvestigated the suspect in a short amount of time, sought the advice of a district attorney,\\npresented the warrant application to a judge, and trusted that he had fixed it. Id. at 984, 988–89.\\nThose facts were not in the affidavit but still were relevant to the Sheppard court. Thus,\\nSheppard “forecloses . . . a categorical rule” that the good-faith exception depends entirely on the\\nface of the warrant itself. United States v. Franz, 772 F.3d 134, 146 (3d Cir. 2014); accord\\nUnited States v. Frazier, 423 F.3d 526, 534–35 (6th Cir. 2005). And Sheppard’s logic extends to\\naffidavits and any other documents in a warrant application.\\n\\n Indeed, our sister circuits have applied the good-faith exception when affidavits (often\\nprepared under time pressure) omitted a few words that were needed to establish probable cause.\\nSee, e.g., United States v. McKenzie-Gude, 671 F.3d 452, 456–57, 460 (4th Cir. 2011); United\\nStates v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308, 1320 (11th Cir. 2002). Even the Tenth Circuit, which\\npurportedly follows a “four corners” rule, still considers (1) additional information presented to\\nthe issuing judge, (2) “information relating to the warrant application process,” and\\n(3) “testimony illuminating how a reasonable officer would interpret factual information\\ncontained in an affidavit.” See United States v. Knox, 883 F.3d 1262, 1272 & n.9 (10th Cir.\\n2018).\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 17\\n\\n\\n In addition, we already allow courts to look outside facially valid documents to see if\\nthere was a Fourth Amendment violation that compels suppression. For example, if a facially\\nvalid warrant was rooted in culpable misconduct, then the good-faith exception does not apply.\\nSee Herring, 555 U.S. at 146 (“If the police have been shown to be reckless in maintaining a\\nwarrant system, or to have knowingly made false entries to lay the groundwork for future false\\narrests, exclusion would certainly be justified . . . .”); see also Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154,\\n155–56 (1978). Likewise, a facially valid warrant cannot support good faith if the officers\\npurposely withheld damaging information from it to present an “incomplete and misleading”\\npicture to the magistrate. United States v. West, 520 F.3d 604, 611–12 (6th Cir. 2008). In other\\nwords, we already consider facts outside the affidavit when evaluating good faith—we just\\nconsider facts that undermine probable cause and ignore facts that support it. Under Laughton,\\noutside facts are a one-way ratchet in favor of criminals. This disparity upsets the cost-benefit\\nbalance at the heart of the good-faith exception: we should only undermine the truth-finding\\nfunction of the criminal justice system when necessary to deter culpable misconduct.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n What would a world without Laughton look like in practice? No court can envision\\nevery situation in which good faith does or does not apply. But a few things are clear.\\nWhenever an affidavit’s four corners are thorough enough to satisfy Leon, the good-faith\\nexception applies (barring some sort of culpable misconduct by the police). Indeed, Leon is a\\nlow bar. An affidavit exceeds the Leon bar when it contains “some connection” between “the\\nillegal activity and the place to be searched,” even if that connection is “remote” and supported\\nby only a slight “modicum of evidence.” United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 496–97 (6th Cir.\\n2017) (quoting United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591, 596 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (internal\\nquotation marks omitted)). Too often courts raise the Leon bar, making it practically\\nindistinguishable from the probable cause standard itself.1 Doing so effectively eliminates the\\n\\n\\n 1In a perfect world, Laughton would not be as problematic because the good-faith exception would apply\\nunless the affidavit was skeletal. Yet courts have extended the “bare bones” exception to good faith well beyond\\nSupreme Court precedent. This case is a perfect example. Leon itself said that an affidavit supports good faith\\nwhen it “provide[s] evidence sufficient to create disagreement among thoughtful and competent judges as to the\\nexistence of probable cause.” 468 U.S. at 926. That is what we have here, as the dueling majority and dissent\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 18\\n\\n\\ngood-faith exception, or at the very least reduces it to a limited, narrow role. But when properly\\napplied, Leon means that in most cases an affidavit will satisfy the good-faith exception. In the\\ninstances when an affidavit is vague on a critical point, however, courts must go further and ask\\nwhether the officers were objectively culpable in relying on that affidavit. To answer that\\nquestion, courts must consider all the circumstances that bear on the officers’ culpability,\\nincluding any time pressure that the officers were under, what facts were known to the officers\\nbut omitted from the affidavit, and how defective the affidavit was without that omitted\\ninformation.\\n\\n The dissent claims that this culpability-focused approach would entail a subjective\\n“expedition into the minds of police officers.” Dissenting Op. Part II (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at\\n922 n.23). Yet the Supreme Court already explained that looking at an “officer’s knowledge and\\nexperience . . . does not make the test . . . subjective.” Herring, 555 U.S. at 145–46 (emphasis\\nadded). Courts are not “inquiring into the subjective beliefs of law enforcement officers” when\\nthey consider “actual uncontroverted facts” known to them. McKenzie-Gude, 671 F.3d at 460–\\n61 (citing Herring, 555 U.S. at 145). Neither the good-faith exception nor Supreme Court\\nprecedent require that we bury our heads in the sand and ignore uncontroverted evidence. We\\nshould follow the Supreme Court’s lead and consider such evidence when determining the\\nofficers’ culpability. See Herring, 555 U.S. at 146–47; Sheppard, 468 U.S. at 987–89. To do\\nanything less is to ignore the very purpose for the exclusionary rule in the first place.\\n\\n Indeed, this case proves the point. Surveilling officers twice observed Thomas\\ninteracting with Christian at Christian’s house. That is an uncontroverted fact, not a subjective\\nbelief. And that fact, had it been included in the affidavit, would have at the very least\\nestablished good faith under Leon. A tight time constraint, not culpable conduct, is the most\\nlikely reason that this information was left out. See Majority Op. Part II.A. In contrast, if\\nofficers saw Thomas at a different house meeting with someone other than Christian, this would\\nbe a different case. In that light, the vague language in the affidavit (“the area of” Christian’s\\nhouse) would objectively appear to be intentional obfuscation rather than negligent oversight.\\n\\n\\nopinions show. But despite this thoughtful disagreement, the dissent continues further to say that the affidavit\\ncannot even satisfy good faith.\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 19\\n\\n\\nR. 42-1, Pg. ID 115. And under those circumstances, the outside facts would support\\nsuppression. But with the facts we have, suppressing the evidence serves no societal purpose.\\n\\n In short, courts can only apply the good-faith exception by evaluating officer conduct and\\ncan only evaluate officer conduct by looking beyond the four corners of the affidavit. The time\\nhas come for us to get in line with the Supreme Court’s good-faith doctrine. We should overrule\\nLaughton.\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 20\\n\\n\\n ______________________________________\\n\\n CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT\\n ______________________________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4402522/\", \"author_raw\": \"THAPAR, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}, {\"author\": \"HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment. I join in Part I of Judge\\nGilman’s opinion. However, because I conclude that the search-warrant affidavit was sufficient\\nto justify a reasonably well-trained officer’s good-faith reliance on the magistrate’s finding of\\nprobable cause, United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 496 (6th Cir. 2017), I concur in the result\\nof the majority opinion.\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 21\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n DISSENT\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4402522/\", \"author_raw\": \"HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}, {\"author\": \"RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Considering the totality of the\\ncircumstances, I believe that the facts set forth in the affidavit fail to establish a “fair probability”\\nthat drug activity was occurring at Christian’s residence (the Residence) at the time the search\\nwarrant was executed. See United States v. Brooks, 594 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2010). I also do\\nnot think that the exception established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), applies in\\nthe present case because the affidavit does not establish a sufficient nexus between the Residence\\nand drug activity at the time of the search.\\n\\n The majority’s conclusion that the issue of probable cause is “really not even close”\\nstrikes me as totally unsupportable. See Maj. Op. 4. Unlike the majority, I acknowledge that\\nwhether there was probable cause and whether the good-faith exception is met are close calls.\\nBut I ultimately conclude that the affidavit falls short because it does not provide any\\n“particularized facts” connecting the Residence to drug activity at the time that the search\\nwarrant was executed. See United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518, 524 (6th Cir. 2006). I\\ntherefore respectfully dissent.\\n\\n I. PROBABLE CAUSE\\n\\n “To establish probable cause adequate to justify issuance of a search warrant, the\\ngovernmental entity or agent seeking the warrant must submit to the magistrate an affidavit that\\nestablishes ‘a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular\\nplace.’” Brooks, 594 F.3d at 492 (quoting United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332, 338 (6th\\nCir. 2009)). This requires “a nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought,”\\nMcPhearson, 469 F.3d at 524 (quoting United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591, 594 (6th\\nCir. 2004) (en banc)), at the time the warrant is issued, United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480,\\n485 (6th Cir. 2006). The probable-cause standard is practical and nontechnical. United States v.\\nFrazier, 423 F.3d 526, 531 (6th Cir. 2005). In other words, a reviewing court should consider\\nthe “totality of the circumstances” rather than “engage in line-by-line scrutiny of the warrant\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 22\\n\\n\\napplication’s affidavit.” United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683, 686 (6th Cir. 2008). But the\\ncourt must limit its “review of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting probable cause . . . to\\nthe information presented in the four-corners of the affidavit.” Frazier, 423 F.3d at 531.\\n\\n The totality-of-the-circumstances approach requires us to examine each piece of evidence\\nin the affidavit to assess its probative value and then determine whether those pieces of evidence\\nare as a whole sufficient to establish probable cause. Gardenhire v. Schubert, 205 F.3d 303, 315\\n(6th Cir. 2000) (explaining that, in the context of an arrest, “[p]robable cause determinations\\ninvolve an examination of all facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge at the time\\nof an arrest” (quoting Estate of Dietrich v. Burrows, 167 F.3d 1007, 1012 (6th Cir. 1999)));\\nUnited States v. Valenzuela, 365 F.3d 892, 897 (10th Cir. 2004) (“[C]ourts may not engage in a\\n‘divide-and-conquer’ analysis of facts to determine whether probable cause existed. However,\\nneither may a court arrive at probable cause simply by piling hunch upon hunch. Thus, in\\nassessing the totality of the circumstances, a reviewing court ‘must examine the facts\\nindividually in their context to determine whether rational inferences can be drawn from them’\\nthat support a probable cause determination.” (emphasis added) (citations omitted)).\\n\\n A. Observations of Thomas\\n\\n I will begin by analyzing the probative value of the evidence presented in the four corners\\nof the affidavit, starting with the officers’ observations of Thomas. Then, as the Supreme Court\\ninstructed in District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018), I will consider each piece of\\nthe evidence “as a factor in the totality of the circumstances.” See id. at 588 (citations omitted).\\n\\n According to the affidavit, law-enforcement officers observed Thomas “walk away from\\nthe area” of the Residence and leave in a vehicle on the day that the search warrant was issued.\\nThey followed Thomas and stopped him after an unknown period of time for a driving infraction.\\nDuring the stop, the officers found approximately 20 grams of heroin in Thomas’s vehicle.\\nCrucially, the affidavit does not state that the officers saw Thomas entering or leaving the\\nResidence, even though their surveillance was targeted specifically at that property. Nor does it\\nsay that Thomas was seen with Christian. In fact, the affidavit does not assert any connection at\\nall between Christian and Thomas.\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 23\\n\\n\\n True enough, the affidavit states that, during the traffic stop, “Rueben Thomas admitted\\nthat he had recently been at an address on Grandville Avenue in the City of Grand Rapids but\\ndenied being at 618 Grandville[,] contrary to observations of the law enforcement officers.” But\\nI decline to interpret this “contrary to observations” statement as an indication that the officers\\nsaw Thomas actually entering or leaving the Residence itself. Officer Bush was undoubtedly\\naware that any evidence of Thomas being at the Residence would be highly relevant to the\\nprobable-cause determination, but chose instead to state simply that Thomas was seen walking in\\n“the area of 618 Grandville”—a vague description that does not place Thomas at the Residence.\\nAbsent a direct statement that Thomas was seen entering or leaving the Residence, or even at the\\nResidence in any sense, I find no basis to read such a factual assertion into the affidavit.\\n\\n The majority, on the other hand, contends that the affidavit’s lack of a direct statement\\nthat Thomas was at the Residence is attributable to the “haste of a criminal investigation,”\\nMaj. Op. 5 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235 (1983)), and that no “magic words” are\\nrequired, Maj. Op. 5 (quoting United States v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 975 (6th Cir. 2000) (en\\nbanc)). But the affidavit’s inclusion of the specific, nontechnical language “from the area”\\nappears to me more consistent with an honest acknowledgement that the officers did not observe\\nThomas at the Residence itself. In fact, the common-sense meaning of the language “from the\\narea” suggests that Thomas was near but not at the Residence when observed by the officers.\\n\\n The majority also notes that the affidavit “need only have ‘allege[d] facts that create a\\nreasonable probability” that “Thomas was seen leaving 618 Grandville.” Maj. Op. 6 (alteration\\nin original) (quoting United States v. Tagg, 886 F.3d 579, 589 (6th Cir. 2018)). This statement\\nreflects a subtle but crucial error. The affidavit must contain facts establishing that probable\\ncause exists to believe that evidence of drug activity will be present in the Residence at the time\\nof the search. Stated differently, probable cause must be established in relation to whether there\\nis evidence of drug activity in the Residence, not in relation to whether Thomas was seen leaving\\nthe Residence. See United States v. Brooks, 594 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2010) (“To establish\\nprobable cause adequate to justify issuance of a search warrant, the governmental entity or agent\\nseeking the warrant must submit to the magistrate an affidavit that establishes ‘a fair probability\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 24\\n\\n\\nthat contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’” (quoting United\\nStates v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332, 338 (6th Cir. 2009))).\\n\\n This leaves us to consider the significance of the following: A single individual with no\\nknown connection to Christian was seen walking away from the area of the Residence and then\\nleaving that area in a car. He was followed by officers for an unknown amount of time to a\\nsubsequent location where a traffic stop was conducted, during which heroin was found in the\\nvehicle. If this provides any nexus at all between evidence of drug trafficking and the Residence,\\nthat nexus is so speculative and attenuated that it cannot, without more, support a finding of\\nprobable cause. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274 (2002) (noting that a hunch is\\ninsufficient to support a finding of reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, and that the reasonable-\\nsuspicion standard is easier to satisfy than the probable-cause standard).\\n\\n To conclude otherwise would allow officers seeking a search warrant to rely on\\nspeculation that drug activity near a residence is related to that residence, significantly lowering\\nthe burden for the government to show probable cause in areas where drugs are prevalent.\\nBecause the government cites no case that would support such a proximity test for establishing\\nprobable cause, I believe that the officers’ observation of Thomas has little value on its own. But\\nthat does not end the inquiry. We must consider, as I do below, whether other evidence in the\\nrecord bolsters or corroborates a connection between Thomas’s alleged drug activity and the\\nResidence, such that the magistrate could have found a fair probability that evidence of drug\\ntrafficking would be found at the Residence at the time of the search.\\n\\n B. Tips from unidentified informants\\n\\nThe affidavit further states:\\n\\n Within the last four months, your affiant has been involved in or received\\n information from several debriefs of subjects who have stated that Tyrone\\n Christian is a large scale drug dealer. These subjects further stated that they have\\n purchased large quantities of heroin and crack cocaine from Christian at\\n 618 Grandville Avenue . . . in the last four to five months.\\n\\n Officer Bush’s assertion that he received information from unidentified “subjects” omits\\ncritical particulars. Among other things, the affidavit does not identify the number of individuals\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 25\\n\\n\\nwho made the statements, explain what constituted a “debrief,” identify the contexts in which the\\ndebriefs occurred, or even specify the date that the information was received (all of the\\ninformation could have been received four months before the search).\\n\\n More importantly, Officer Bush’s statement gives no indication as to the veracity or\\nreliability of the information obtained. He did not assert any belief concerning the reliability or\\nveracity of the subjects’ comments, let alone provide any factual basis by which the magistrate\\ncould assess their reliability or veracity. See United States v. Helton, 314 F.3d 812, 822 (6th Cir.\\n2003) (explaining that, under Sixth Circuit precedent, an affidavit “must contain a statement\\nabout some of the underlying circumstances indicating the informant was credible or that his\\ninformation was reliable” (quoting United States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 473, 477 (6th Cir. 1999))).\\n\\n The affidavit’s complete failure to address the credibility and reliability of the\\ninformation provided by the subjects is even more glaring when juxtaposed with Officer Bush’s\\ninclusion of a paragraph supporting the credibility and reliability of the confidential informant\\nwho conducted the controlled buy in January 2015. With regard to this latter informant, Officer\\nBush stated that “[y]our affiant was able to confirm much of the information provided by the\\ncredible and reliable informant through information maintained by the Grand Rapids Police\\nDepartment, other credible and reliable informants, public information sources and other law\\nenforcement agencies.” This statement indicates that Officer Bush was well aware that hearsay\\nstatements from informants should be accompanied by an explanation of their credibility and\\nreliability. Accordingly, his failure to do so with respect to information obtained from the\\nunidentified subjects implies the absence of any such indicia.\\n\\n An affidavit establishing probable cause based on an informant’s tip must also provide\\nfacts identifying the basis of the informant’s knowledge. United States v. Frazier, 423 F.3d 526,\\n532 (6th Cir. 2005). “The ‘basis for knowledge’ factor uses the degree of detail in a tip to infer\\nwhether the tipster ‘had a reliable basis for making his statements.’” Helton, 314 F.3d at 822\\n(quoting Smith, 182 F.3d at 477). Although Officer Bush’s affidavit states that the basis of the\\nsubjects’ knowledge was that they had each purchased drugs from Christian at the Residence, the\\naffidavit provides almost no details about the purchases beyond identifying the types of drugs\\ninvolved. The unidentified subjects did not state exactly when they had purchased drugs from\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 26\\n\\n\\nChristian, the amount of the drugs purchased, or whether they entered the Residence and saw any\\ncontrolled substances or other evidence of drug trafficking inside. This lack of detail further\\nreduces the probative value of the information obtained from these sources.\\n\\n “[I]n the absence of any indicia of the informants’ reliability, courts insist that the\\naffidavit contain substantial independent police corroboration.” Frazier, 423 F.3d at 532. There\\nis no evidence in the present case that the police corroborated any of the information obtained\\nfrom the unidentified subjects. The affidavit does not indicate that the police engaged in any\\nongoing surveillance of the Residence, conducted subsequent controlled purchases, or otherwise\\ntried to verify that Christian was currently using the Residence to sell drugs. And although the\\npolice established surveillance of the Residence on the very day that the affidavit was executed,\\nthe affidavit contains no observations by the police suggesting that Christian was then using the\\nResidence as a base of operations.\\n\\n Because the information from these unidentified subjects lacks any indicia of veracity or\\nreliability and was not corroborated by subsequent police investigation, it should be accorded\\nlittle weight in determining whether there was probable cause to search the Residence. See\\nUnited States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518, 524 n.3 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Thus, an allegation of\\ndrug dealing based on information from an untested confidential informant is insufficient to\\nestablish probable cause to search the alleged drug dealer’s home. However, where the\\nallegation of drug dealing is coupled with independently corroborated information from police\\nofficers, it may be sufficient to establish probable cause.”); Helton, 314 F.3d at 822 (concluding\\nthat little weight should be given to statements from an informant whose reliability has not been\\ndetermined); see also United States v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 976 (6th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting\\nthat an anonymous tip, even one that is “rich in particulars,” will not be enough to establish\\nprobable cause if only innocent details are corroborated by the police, but holding that a\\nmagistrate may find probable cause to search a residence when “a known person, named to the\\nmagistrate, to whose reliability an officer attests with some detail, states that he has seen a\\nparticular crime and particular evidence, in the recent past”).\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 27\\n\\n\\n C. The January controlled buy\\n\\n Christian also contends that the evidence of the January 2015 controlled buy was stale\\nwhen the affidavit was executed eight months later, and thus could not have supported a finding\\nof probable cause to search the Residence. The government disputes this contention, arguing\\nthat because the officers sought records and indicia of continuous drug trafficking, the evidence\\nwas not stale.\\n\\n “[S]tale information cannot be used in a probable cause determination.” United States\\nv. Perry, 864 F.3d 412, 414 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Frechette, 583 F.3d 374,\\n377 (6th Cir. 2009)); see also United States v. Harris, 255 F.3d 288, 299 (6th Cir. 2001)\\n(“Because probable cause to search is concerned with facts relating to a presently existing\\ncondition, . . . there arises the unique problem of whether the probable cause which once existed\\nhas grown stale.” (quoting United States v. Spikes, 158 F.3d 913, 923 (6th Cir. 1998))). Whether\\nevidence is stale is a flexible inquiry that does not “create an arbitrary time limitation within\\nwhich discovered facts must be presented to a magistrate.” United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d\\n471, 480 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Spikes, 158 F.3d at 923). In considering the length of time\\nbetween the events listed in the affidavit and the application for the warrant, a court should\\nconsider several factors, including:\\n\\n [1] the character of the crime (chance encounter in the night or regenerating\\n conspiracy?), [2] the criminal (nomadic or entrenched?), [3] the thing to be seized\\n (perishable and easily transferable or of enduring utility to its holder?), [and 4] the\\n place to be searched (mere criminal forum of convenience or secure operational\\n base?) . . . .\\n\\nSpikes, 158 F.3d at 923 (quoting Andresen v. State, 331 A.2d 78, 106 (Md. Ct. Spec.\\nApp. 1975)).\\n\\n 1. Second and fourth Spikes factors\\n\\n There is little question that the second and fourth factors weigh in favor of finding that\\nthe evidence of the January controlled buy was not stale. The affidavit supports the conclusion\\nthat Christian had been occupying the Residence in Grand Rapids since at least 2009 and was\\nthus “entrenched” in the community. See Frechette, 583 F.3d at 379 (finding that the defendant\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 28\\n\\n\\nwas entrenched when evidence in the affidavit indicated that he had lived in the residence in\\nquestion for 16 months). Moreover, courts have repeatedly held that a defendant’s residence “is\\nclearly a ‘secure operational base.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Paull, 551 F.3d 516, 522 (6th\\nCir. 2009)); see also United States v. Powell, 603 F. App’x 475, 478 (6th Cir. 2015) (concluding\\nthat an individual’s home “is more like a secure operational base than a mere forum of\\nconvenience”).\\n\\n 2. First Spikes factor\\n\\n The first and third factors, however, weigh in favor of finding that the evidence of the\\ncontrolled buy was stale. With regard to the first factor, “[i]f an affidavit recites activity\\nindicating protracted or continuous conduct, time is of less significance.” United States\\nv. Henson, 848 F.2d 1374, 1382 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Haimowitz, 706 F.2d\\n1549, 1554–55 (11th Cir. 1983)). This court has used both the terms “protracted and\\ncontinuous” and “ongoing and continuous.” Compare Perry, 864 F.3d at 415, with United States\\nv. Hython, 443 F.3d 480, 485 (6th Cir. 2006). Both variations appear to encompass two\\nprinciples: that the conduct extended over a significant period of time and that it continued up to\\n(or close to) the time of the search. (For clarity, I will use “protracted” for the first principle and\\n“continuous” for the latter.) The key question, then, is whether the affidavit contains facts\\nsupporting an inference that Christian was engaged in recurrent or sustained drug-trafficking\\nactivity up to the time of the search.\\n\\n As this court has pointed out:\\n\\n The crime at issue in this case—the sale of drugs out of a residence—is not\\n inherently ongoing. Rather, it exists upon a continuum ranging from an\\n individual who effectuates the occasional sale from his or her personal holdings of\\n drugs to known acquaintances, to an organized group operating an established and\\n notorious drug den. The inclusion of outdated information has been insufficient\\n to render an entire affidavit stale when the affidavit as a whole establishes that the\\n criminal activity in question is ongoing and continuous, or closer to the “drug\\n den” end of the continuum.\\n\\nHython, 443 F.3d at 485. But if the affidavit, taken as a whole, suggests that the defendant is\\nengaged in something closer to the “occasional sale from . . . personal holdings,” id., then\\n“information goes stale very quickly ‘because drugs are usually sold and consumed in a prompt\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 29\\n\\n\\nfashion,’” United States v. Brooks, 594 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Frechette,\\n583 F.3d at 378).\\n\\n Here, Officer Bush explains that “a credible and reliable informant” engaged in a\\ncontrolled purchase of drugs from Christian at the Residence in January 2015, eight months\\nbefore Officer Bush sought the warrant at issue in this case. But the affidavit provides almost no\\ndetail regarding the controlled buy—it does not state whether the officers observed the buy,\\nidentify the type or amount of the controlled substance purchased, indicate how the purchase was\\ninitiated, or reveal if the informant had purchased drugs from Christian previously. Nor does the\\naffidavit disclose whether the informant saw large quantities of drugs in Christian’s possession\\nor in the Residence. See United States v. Abernathy, 843 F.3d 243, 255 (6th Cir. 2016) (noting\\nthat a large quantity of drugs found in a trash can outside of a residence would suggest “repeated\\nand ongoing drug activity in the residence”). Nothing about the January 2015 single controlled\\nbuy of an unknown quantity of an unknown drug by an informant with an unknown relationship\\nto Christian suggests that Christian was engaged in protracted or continuous drug trafficking.\\n\\n In sum, the affidavit reflects only a single purchase from a reliable informant eight\\nmonths before the search and no other credible evidence of drug activity beyond four prior drug\\nconvictions ranging from 4 to 19 years old (the significance of these drug convictions for the\\nprobable-cause determination will be discussed in further detail below). I therefore conclude that\\nthe affidavit does not establish that Christian was engaged in protracted and continuous drug\\ntrafficking. Cf. United States v. Sinclair, 631 F. App’x 344, 348 (6th Cir. 2015) (evaluating the\\nSpikes staleness factors and concluding that the crime at issue was “an ongoing drug trafficking\\nconspiracy” when a confidential informant reported purchasing heroin from the defendant “for\\nseveral years,” and the officers observed the defendant engaging in activity consistent with drug\\ntrafficking over the most recent 12 months, with the last observation occurring just 15 days\\nbefore the search warrant was executed at the defendant’s residence); United States v. Greene,\\n250 F.3d 471, 481 (6th Cir. 2001) (finding protracted and continuous drug trafficking where a\\nreliable confidential informant reported purchasing drugs from the defendant at his residence at\\nleast 12 times, the last purchase occurring 23 months before the search warrant executed,\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 30\\n\\n\\nbecause the informant also stated that a package was sent from the residence to a known drug\\ndealer less than one month prior to the execution of the warrant).\\n\\n 3. Third Spikes factor\\n\\n With regard to the third factor—whether the evidence to be seized is of enduring utility to\\nthe holder—the government contends that the warrant sought not just controlled substances, but\\nalso records of drug trafficking and firearms used in drug trafficking. These latter two categories\\nof evidence, it argues, are likely to endure, even if controlled substances themselves are not. To\\nsupport this argument, the government relies on United States v. Burney, 778 F.3d 536 (6th Cir.\\n2015). But Burney is distinguishable from the present case because there was no dispute that the\\n17-page affidavit in Burney provided ample evidence that the property had been used as a stash\\nhouse for “a large-scale drug trafficking and money laundering operation— . . . a regenerating,\\nenduring criminal enterprise that bears no resemblance to a ‘chance encounter in the night.’” Id.\\nat 538, 541–42. Such an extensive operation was likely to involve “scales, weapons, safes,\\nbagging materials, and the like,” evidence that was “not readily consumable” and thus unlikely to\\n“be consumed or to disappear.” Id. at 541.\\n\\n In his affidavit in the present case, Officer Bush acknowledged the distinction between\\nthose who occasionally sell from their own supply—and thus produce little lasting evidence—\\nand those who sell regularly for profit using extensive networks that likely involve durable\\nevidence like records and firearms. True enough, Officer Bush stated in the affidavit that he was\\nseeking records and firearms related to extensive drug-trafficking operations. But this statement\\nassumes what the affidavit tried and, I believe, ultimately failed to prove by substantial\\nevidence—that Christian was engaged in organized and extensive drug-trafficking operations\\nlikely to involve not just controlled substances, but also records and firearms.\\n\\n Because the government has provided credible evidence of only a single sale of an\\nunknown quantity of a controlled substance in January 2015, rather than “a large-scale drug\\ntrafficking and money laundering operation,” see id., it failed to provide a reason to believe that\\nrecords of drug trafficking and firearms would be found at the Residence. Whether such records\\nare durable is thus irrelevant. And “because drugs are usually sold and consumed in a prompt\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 31\\n\\n\\nfashion,” evidence of a single drug sale became stale “very quickly,” well before the search was\\nexecuted eight months later. See United States v. Abernathy, 843 F.3d 243, 250 (6th Cir. 2016)\\n(quoting United States v. Brooks, 594 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2010)); see also United States v.\\nHython, 443 F.3d 480, 486 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting the limited evidentiary value of an undated\\ncontrolled buy absent evidence of any recent drug activity at the residence). The third factor thus\\nweighs in favor of finding the evidence of the controlled buy to be stale.\\n\\n 4. Conclusion on staleness\\n\\n I believe that the first and third Spikes factors control the determination of whether\\nevidence of the controlled buy is stale in this case. Although Christian is entrenched in the\\ncommunity and his residence would be a secure base of operations, the key question is whether\\nevidence of drug activity would be found there at the time of the search. With no reliable\\nevidence of continuous and protracted drug activity, the eight-month-old controlled buy was\\nstale.\\n\\n This court’s decision in Brooks offers strong support for my conclusion. Brooks\\nconsidered whether an affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause to search the\\ndefendant’s residence for evidence of drug crimes. Crucially, the affiant-officer arrested the\\ndefendant for aggravated drug trafficking at the defendant’s residence and, in the process,\\nsmelled marijuana and observed marijuana seeds in plain view. The officer also found $1,000 in\\ncash on the defendant after conducting a pat-down search. Later that day, the affiant-officer\\nexecuted the affidavit in support of the search warrant. This court held that the officer’s\\nobservations alone were sufficient to support probable cause. Brooks, 594 F.3d at 495.\\n\\n But the affidavit in Brooks also contained several other pieces of information that, by\\nthemselves, were held to be insufficient to establish probable cause. These were: (1) four tips\\nfrom confidential informants, stating that the defendant was trafficking in cocaine, with the tips\\nranging from one to five years old at the time that the affidavit was executed; (2) a 20-month-old\\ntip from a confidential informant, stating that the defendant was selling cocaine from his\\nresidence; and (3) two controlled buys made by a confidential informant almost eight months\\nbefore the affidavit was executed. The court noted:\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 32\\n\\n\\n [T]here is no question but that this information is stale for purposes of\\n establishing probable cause in its own right. All of the information is regarding\\n drug transactions that took place, at the most recent, approximately six months\\n prior to the date of the affidavit. Given the mobile and quickly consumable nature\\n of narcotics, evidence of drug sales or purchases loses its freshness extremely\\n quickly.\\n\\nId. at 493 n.4. Similarly, the single controlled buy conducted in the present case was stale when\\nthe warrant was executed eight months later. Cf. United States v. Yates, 501 F. App’x 505, 511\\n(6th Cir. 2012) (concluding that evidence of a single drug transaction occurring at a residence\\nwas not stale when the transaction occurred within ten days of the affidavit’s execution); United\\nStates v. Pinson, 321 F.3d 558, 565 (6th Cir. 2003) (concluding that evidence of a single\\ncontrolled purchase was not stale when the warrant was issued three days later).\\n\\n D. Criminal history\\n\\n The next matter to be considered is Christian’s criminal record. Although “a person’s\\ncriminal record [demonstrating multiple drug offenses] alone does not justify a search of his or\\nher home[,]” United States v. Payne, 181 F.3d 781, 790–91 (6th Cir. 1999), it is relevant to the\\nprobable-cause inquiry, United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332, 339 (6th Cir. 2009). The affidavit\\nin question here asserts that Christian, at the time that the warrant was issued, had a 19-year-old\\nconviction for possession of less than 25 grams of cocaine and a 13-year-old conviction for an\\nunspecified second controlled-substance offense. Christian has an additional six-year-old\\nconviction for the delivery/manufacture of marijuana and a four-year-old conviction for the\\ndelivery/manufacture of cocaine.\\n\\n The majority’s contention that these convictions support a conclusion that Christian was\\nengaged, at some point, in protracted drug activity is problematic. See Maj. Op. 4. Precedent\\ninstructs us to consider “[t]he relative recency of a set of actions and their relative closeness in\\ntime to each other.” United States v. Perry, 864 F.3d 412, 415 (6th Cir. 2017). These\\nconvictions are each several years apart, and even the most recent conviction predates the\\nJanuary 2015 controlled buy by four years. Nothing about these old convictions and the\\ncontrolled buy is inconsistent with a conclusion that Christian was simply “effectuat[ing] the\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 33\\n\\n\\noccasional sale from his or her personal holdings of drugs to known acquaintances.” See United\\nStates v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480, 485 (6th Cir. 2006).\\n\\n But even assuming that these convictions, combined with the fact that two search\\nwarrants were executed at the Residence in 2009 and 2011, support a conclusion that Christian\\nwas engaged in protracted drug sales at the Residence at some point, there is no evidence to\\nsuggest that these sales were continuous at the time the warrant was sought and executed in\\nSeptember 2015. See United States v. Helton, 314 F.3d 812, 822 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting that\\neven where “the likely duration of th[e] evidence is relatively long,” the evidence may still be\\nstale if enough time has passed between the tip and the execution of the warrant); United States\\nv. Brown, 828 F.3d 375, 384 n.3 (6th Cir. 2016) (concluding that a 12-year-old conviction for\\nconspiracy to distribute marijuana was insufficient to establish that an individual was a known\\ndrug dealer at the time the warrant was executed).\\n\\n The key issue is whether a search-warrant affidavit establishes a fair probability that the\\nevidence sought will be found at the place identified at the time the warrant is executed. Hython,\\n443 F.3d at 485. Emphasizing the temporal requirement of this test, this court found in Hython\\nthat “[e]ven had the affidavit stated that from time out of mind, [the residence to be searched]\\nhad been a notorious drug den, some recent information would be necessary to eliminate the\\npossibility that a transfer in ownership or a cessation of illegal activity had not taken place.” Id.\\nat 486; see also United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518, 524 (6th Cir. 2006) (concluding that\\nthe magistrate may “draw the inference that evidence of wrongdoing would be found in the\\ndefendants’ homes” when the affidavit reflects “the independently corroborated fact that the\\ndefendants were known drug dealers at the time the police sought to search their homes”).\\n\\n Neither the majority nor the government has identified any case in which a record of past\\ndrug convictions, without recent credible evidence of drug activity, was sufficient to establish\\nthat a defendant was engaged in protracted and continuous drug dealing. This court has\\ngenerally relied on past drug convictions in combination with a defendant’s recent drug activity\\nin applying the principle that, “[i]n the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where\\nthe dealers live.” United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 501 (6th Cir. 2017) (alteration in\\noriginal) (quoting United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 975 (6th Cir. 1998)); see also United\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 34\\n\\n\\nStates v. Miggins, 302 F.3d 384, 393 (6th Cir. 2002) (finding probable cause to search the\\ndefendant’s residence where his criminal record indicated that he had been convicted of cocaine\\ncharges and officers observed him signing for a package of cocaine delivered at a second\\nlocation immediately before the issuance of the warrant).\\n\\n Absent additional recent reliable evidence, then, old criminal convictions cannot support\\na finding that drug activity is continuous at the time of the search. Our legal system has long\\nheld a strong policy against using propensity evidence to suggest an inference that an individual\\nwho has once committed a crime continues to engage in criminal activity. See Fed. R. Evid.\\n404(b)(1) (“Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s\\ncharacter in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the\\ncharacter.”). Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not come into play when deciding the\\nvalidity of a search warrant, the aim of Rule 404 is similar to the purpose of the staleness rule: to\\nensure that decisionmakers—whether jurors or magistrates—do not improperly assume based on\\npast wrongs that an individual is currently engaging in the specific criminal conduct at issue. See\\nOld Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 179–82 (1997) (discussing the prejudicial nature of\\npropensity evidence). By allowing the government to rely in part on Christian’s stale prior\\nconvictions, the majority is lowering the probable-cause threshold for former convicts and\\nstripping away their rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.\\n\\n I therefore conclude that Christian’s prior criminal convictions, even when considered\\nwith the eight-month-old controlled buy, do not establish that he was engaged in protracted and\\ncontinuous drug activity. And absent some “independently corroborated fact that the defendant[]\\nw[as a] known drug dealer[] at the time the police sought to search [his] home,” probable cause\\ndid not exist to search the Residence based on Christian’s criminal record. See McPhearson, 469\\nF.3d at 524.\\n\\n E. Totality of the circumstances\\n\\n As discussed above, the caselaw makes clear that the probable-cause determination must\\nbe based on the “totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683, 686\\n(6th Cir. 2008). The court should therefore evaluate the weight of the evidence when considered\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 35\\n\\n\\nas a whole. At this juncture, I note that the equivalent of only one page of the affidavit is\\ndedicated to facts specifically related to Christian. The majority repeatedly points out that the\\naffidavit is five pages long, see Maj. Op. 1, 9, but the affidavit mostly concerns generic\\ninformation, including Officer Bush’s qualifications and the general nature of drug\\ninvestigations.\\n\\n Even though the relevant portion of the affidavit is short and the information contained\\ntherein problematic, I recognize that this is not necessarily fatal. For instance, “[w]here recent\\ninformation corroborates otherwise stale information, probable cause may be found.” United\\nStates v. Spikes, 158 F.3d 913, 924 (6th Cir. 1998) (alteration in original) (quoting United States\\nv. Henson, 848 F.2d 1374, 1381–82 (6th Cir. 1988)) (concluding that evidence of drug residue in\\na residence’s trash cans and an officer’s recent observations of individuals leaving the residence\\nto sell drugs nearby “refreshed . . . otherwise stale information” contained in the affidavit). But\\nno reliable evidence corroborates the stale evidence in the affidavit under review.\\n\\n In addition, evidence from an informant whose reliability is not known can be\\ncorroborated by independent information from police officers. McPhearson, 469 F.3d at 524\\nn.3; United States v. Hammond, 351 F.3d 765, 772 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting the “minimal\\nprobative value” of a tip from an informant of unknown reliability, but concluding that “the tip\\ncan take on an increased level of significance for probable cause purposes, if corroborated by the\\npolice through subsequent investigation”). But there is no evidence that the officers here\\nattempted to corroborate the information provided by the unidentified subjects. And even if the\\nprevious controlled buy could be considered to corroborate subsequent information from\\nunidentified sources, the single buy did not corroborate allegations that protracted and\\ncontinuous drug activity was occurring at the Residence.\\n\\n In sum, the affidavit shows that (1) two search warrants were executed for drugs at the\\nResidence years ago, (2) Christian has a history of years-old drug convictions, (3) he engaged in\\none sale of drugs at the Residence eight months prior to the execution of the search warrant,\\n(4) unidentified subjects of unknown reliability reported that Christian was selling drugs at\\nunspecified times in more recent months, and (5) a man with no known connection to Christian\\nwas found to be in possession of drugs after leaving “the area” of the Residence on the date of\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 36\\n\\n\\nthe search-warrant affidavit. This evidence, even under the totality-of-the-circumstances\\napproach, fails to establish a “fair probability” that drug activity was occurring at the Residence\\nat the time the search warrant was executed. See United States v. Brooks, 594 F.3d 488, 492 (6th\\nCir. 2010).\\n\\n The majority relies on United States v. Hines, 885 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 2018), in arguing to\\nthe contrary. Maj. Op. 8 (quoting Hines, 885 F.3d at 921–22) (“‘Not all search warrant affidavits\\ninclude the same ingredients,’ we said before recognizing that “‘[i]t is the mix that courts review\\nto decide whether evidence generated from the search may be used or must be suppressed.’”\\n(alteration in original)). But the facts of Hines actually lend further support to my position that\\nthe warrant here did not establish probable cause to search the Residence.\\n\\n The affidavit at issue in Hines contained the following evidence in support of a warrant to\\nsearch the house in question, owned by Hines’s mother: (1) a reliable confidential informant told\\nofficers five months prior to the warrant’s execution that the defendant was selling large amounts\\nof heroin from the house; (2) a statement from the same informant that he had seen heroin at the\\nhouse the day before the search; (3) several months of surveillance of the house by\\nlaw-enforcement officers documented the defendant’s comings and goings; (4) a tip from a\\nsecond reliable confidential informant the day before the warrant’s execution stated that he was\\nmeeting the defendant at a nearby club to discuss an incoming heroin shipment; (5) officers’\\nobservations of the defendant driving “in a manner consistent with narcotics traffickers” to the\\nclub at the designated time; (6) statements from the second informant that he had received heroin\\nfrom the defendant numerous times and was always instructed to meet him at the house to\\nreceive that heroin; (7) a tip from the second informant that he was instructed to collect heroin\\nfrom the defendant at the house on the day that the warrant was executed; (8) three-year-old\\nwiretaps identifying the defendant as a significant heroin trafficker; (9) the two-year-old seizure\\nof $33,500 from a third individual outside the house (believed to be payment from Hines for a\\nkilogram of cocaine); and (10) a subsequent statement from this individual that he had previously\\nprovided the defendant with heroin and cocaine. Hines, 885 F.3d at 922.\\n\\n All of the evidence detailed above in Hines directly linked the residence to heroin\\ntrafficking at the time of the search through information from reliable informants and specific\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 37\\n\\n\\nobservations by officers that corroborated the information provided by those informants. And\\nafter comparing this evidence with that used to support affidavits in other cases, the court in\\nHines ultimately concluded that the affidavit at least satisfied the Leon good-faith standard, if not\\nprobable cause. Id. at 924–28.\\n\\n The affidavit at issue here, in contrast, fails to establish anything more than a speculative\\nconnection between drug activity and the Residence at the time of the search. This is the “hunch\\nupon hunch” approach found unacceptable in United States v. Valenzuela, 365 F.3d 892, 897\\n(10th Cir. 2004). Unlike the affidavit in Hines, the affidavit here contains no recent evidence of\\ndrug activity at the Residence. The search warrant was therefore not supported by probable\\ncause. Under these circumstances, the deference that would otherwise be due to the issuing\\nmagistrate is unjustified. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914 (1984) (“Deference to the\\nmagistrate . . . is not boundless.”); Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 733 (1984) (noting\\nthat we apply a “deferential standard of review” to an issuing magistrate’s probable-cause\\ndetermination, but that the determination will not be upheld if the evidence, viewed as a whole,\\ndoes not provide a “substantial basis” for that determination).\\n\\n But the majority contends that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia\\nv. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018), prevents us from “discounting each item [in the affidavit] one\\nby one.” Maj. Op. 10. Similarly, according to the majority, “Hines requires us to look\\nholistically at what the affidavit does show, instead of focusing on what the affidavit does not\\ncontain, or the flaws of each individual component of the affidavit.” Maj. Op. 8. The majority\\nseems to believe that those cases prevent us from assessing the probative value of each bit of\\nmaterial information contained in an affidavit. That is not what the caselaw forbids, and nor\\nshould it.\\n\\n To the contrary, under the totality-of-the-circumstances approach, we assess the probative\\nvalue of each piece of evidence in the affidavit and then determine whether those pieces of\\nevidence are, as a whole, sufficient to establish probable cause—in other words, we review the\\n“mix” of unique “ingredients” in the affidavit. See Hines, 885 F.3d at 921–22; see also\\nGardenhire v. Schubert, 205 F.3d 303, 315 (6th Cir. 2000) (explaining that, in the context of an\\narrest, “[p]robable cause determinations involve an examination of all facts and circumstances\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 38\\n\\n\\nwithin an officer’s knowledge at the time of an arrest” (quoting Estate of Dietrich v. Burrows,\\n167 F.3d 1007, 1012 (6th Cir. 1999))); Valenzuela, 365 F.3d at 897 (“[I]n assessing the totality\\nof the circumstances, a reviewing court must examine the facts individually in their context to\\ndetermine whether rational inferences can be drawn from them that support a probable cause\\ndetermination.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).\\n\\n The D.C. Circuit’s error in Wesby was that it “viewed each fact ‘in isolation, rather than\\nas a factor in the totality of the circumstances.’” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 588 (quoting Maryland v.\\nPringle, 540 U.S. 366, 372 n.2 (2003)). Specifically, the Court of Appeals erred by engaging in\\na “divide-and-conquer analysis,” id. (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274 (2002)),\\nwhereby it dismissed facts that were “not sufficient standing alone to create probable cause,” id.\\n(emphasis in original). I have not done that here. Instead, I have considered each fact “as a\\nfactor in the totality of the circumstances,” but nonetheless conclude that the affidavit was\\ninsufficient to establish probable cause. See id. (quoting Pringle, 540 U.S. at 372 n.2).\\n\\n The majority’s approach, on the other hand, is problematic because it contains\\n“inferences drawn upon inferences.” See United States v. Laughton, 409 F.3d 744, 750 (6th\\nCir. 2005). It infers that the officers saw Thomas leave the Residence, that the heroin found in\\nThomas’s vehicle was connected to the Residence, that tips from unidentified informants are\\nreliable without any indicia of credibility and without corroboration, and that a stale controlled\\nbuy and old criminal convictions establish that Christian was engaged in continuous and\\nprotracted drug activity at the time of the search. The totality-of-the-circumstances test is not a\\nlicense for the majority to list problematic evidence, stacking inference upon inference, and\\ncontend in a conclusory manner that “taken together [the affidavit] point[s] clearly to one\\nconclusion: that Christian was dealing drugs from 618 Grandville.” Maj. Op. 7. Rather, the\\nSupreme Court in Wesby instructed lower courts to view each fact “as a factor in the totality of\\nthe circumstances” and to “consider ‘the whole picture.’” See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 588 (citations\\nomitted). This requires us to explain how individual pieces of evidence corroborate one another,\\nwhich the majority has failed to do.\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 39\\n\\n\\n II. LEON GOOD-FAITH EXCEPTION\\n\\n This brings me to the Leon good-faith exception. Under the Leon good-faith standard,\\nsuppression should be limited to “circumstances in which the benefits of police deterrence\\noutweigh the heavy costs of excluding ‘inherently trustworthy tangible evidence’ from the jury’s\\nconsideration.” United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 496 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States\\nv. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 907 (1984)). The test is “whether a reasonably well trained officer would\\nhave known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s decision.” Id. (quoting United\\nStates v. Hodson, 543 F.3d 286, 293 (6th Cir. 2008)).\\n\\n Four situations have been identified by the Supreme Court in which an officer could not\\nreasonably believe that a search was valid, despite the issuance of a warrant. See Laughton, 409\\nF.3d at 748 (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 914–23). One of those is where the affidavit is “so lacking\\nin indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.”\\nLeon, 468 U.S. at 923 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 610–11 (1975) (Powell, J.,\\nconcurring in part)). Such an affidavit has been characterized as “bare bones.” Id. at 915, 926.\\nA “bare bones affidavit is one that merely ‘states suspicions, beliefs, or conclusions, without\\nproviding some underlying factual circumstances regarding veracity, reliability, and basis of\\nknowledge.’” United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518, 526 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting United\\nStates v. Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372, 1378 (6th Cir. 1996)). In contrast, a sufficient affidavit must\\ncontain some “particularized facts that indicate veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge and\\ngo beyond bare conclusions and suppositions.” Id.\\n\\n This court held in Laughton “that a determination of good-faith reliance, like a\\ndetermination of probable cause, must be bound by the four corners of the affidavit.” Laughton,\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4402522/\", \"author_raw\": \"RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}, {\"author\": \"409 F.3d at 751. Judge Thapar, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"409 F.3d at 751. Judge Thapar, concurring in the present case, now recommends that we\\noverrule Laughton. But I believe that Laughton correctly decided that “the good faith exception\\nto the exclusionary rule does not permit consideration of information known to a police officer,\\nbut not included in the affidavit, in determining whether an objectively reasonable officer would\\nhave relied on the warrant.” Id. at 752.\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 40\\n\\n\\n The test for good-faith reliance is an objective one. Leon, 468 U.S. at 919 n.20. In Leon,\\nthe Supreme Court reasoned that “sending state and federal courts on an expedition into the\\nminds of police officers would produce a grave and fruitless misallocation of judicial resources.”\\nId. at 922 n.23 (quoting Massachusetts v. Painten, 389 U.S. 560, 565 (1968) (White, J.,\\ndissenting)). This court held in Laughton that the same reasoning applies to the issue of\\nconsidering information outside of the affidavit “in determining whether an objectively\\nreasonable officer would have relied on the warrant.” Laughton, 409 F.3d at 752. Allowing\\ncourts to consider such extrinsic information would “lead to the very kind of subjectivity that the\\nSupreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected.” Id. Future cases would require courts to\\nengage in the subjective and time-consuming inquiry of “determin[ing] not only how much\\naffiants knew, but also when and from whom they learned it.” See id.\\n\\n Judge Thapar disagrees, citing Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), for the\\nproposition that courts already consider “a particular officer’s knowledge and experience, but\\nthat does not make the test any more subjective than the one for probable cause, which looks to\\nan officer’s knowledge and experience, but not his subjective intent.” Id. at 145–46 (internal\\ncitations omitted). But the Supreme Court in Herring was noting only that we should consider a\\npolice officer’s general background knowledge and experience. In support of this proposition,\\nthe Court cited Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996), in which Chief Justice Rehnquist\\nobserved that “a police officer views the facts through the lens of his police experience and\\nexpertise” and that “a police officer may draw inferences based on his own experience in\\ndeciding whether probable cause exists.” Id. at 699–700. Considering an officer’s general\\nbackground knowledge and experience is an entirely different inquiry from considering what\\nrelevant facts were known to the officer at the time of the search. The latter requires us to\\n“inquir[e] into the subjective awareness of arresting officers,” see Herring, 555 U.S. at 145,\\nwhereas the former does not.\\n\\n Furthermore, “Leon . . . make[s] clear that the relevant question is whether the officer\\nreasonably believed that the warrant was properly issued, not whether probable cause existed in\\nfact.” United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591, 598 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (Gilman, J.,\\nconcurring) (emphasis in original). Information extrinsic to the affidavit and not presented to the\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 41\\n\\n\\nmagistrate is not relevant to the inquiry of whether the officer reasonably believed that the\\nwarrant was properly issued. Accordingly, I find no basis to conclude that this court’s decision\\nin Laughton is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.\\n\\n Applying the above principles, I acknowledge that whether the good-faith standard is met\\nin this case is a close call. But I ultimately conclude that the affidavit falls short because it does\\nnot provide any particularized facts connecting the Residence to drug activity at the time that the\\nsearch warrant was executed.\\n\\n The majority, in concluding otherwise, argues that our decision in United States\\nv. Hython, 443 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2006), “is almost completely inapposite here,” Maj. Op. 9.\\nI completely disagree. In Hython, the affidavit contained information that the officers had, at\\nsome unidentified point, conducted a controlled buy of crack cocaine at the residence to be\\nsearched. But because “the affidavit include[d] no observation of deliveries to the address, no\\nmonitoring of the frequency or volume of visitors to the house, no second controlled buy, [and]\\nno further surveillance whatsoever,” “the affidavit [wa]s patently insufficient” to allow a\\nreasonable officer to believe that the affidavit established probable cause to search the residence.\\nHython, 443 F.3d at 486, 488–89.\\n\\n Similarly, the affidavit in the present case primarily relies on a single stale controlled buy\\nto link the Residence to drug activity at the time of the search. It does not provide any credible\\nevidence that drug activity continued at the Residence in the eight-month interim, and the single\\ninstance of contemporary surveillance did not link the Residence to drug activity by anything\\nmore than speculation that Thomas purchased drugs at the Residence. This court’s decision in\\nHython is thus very much on point with regard to the Leon good-faith issue.\\n\\n Moreover, this court has held that the Leon good-faith standard was not satisfied where\\n“the ‘evidence in the affidavit connecting the crime to the residence [wa]s so vague as to be\\nconclusory or meaningless.’” McPhearson, 469 F.3d at 527 (quoting United States v. Frazier,\\n423 F.3d 526, 537 (6th Cir. 2005)) (finding that the Leon standard was not satisfied where the\\naffidavit reflected that officers had arrested the defendant at his residence on an assault charge\\nand found him in possession of cocaine, but where there was no evidence connecting the\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 42\\n\\n\\ndefendant or his residence to drug trafficking); see also United States v. Brown, 828 F.3d 375,\\n384–86 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that, in the search of a residence, the Leon good-faith standard\\nwas not satisfied despite the affidavit’s allegations that the defendant was arrested for attempting\\nto deliver heroin 21 days prior to the search, a drug dog had alerted to the odor of narcotics in the\\ndefendant’s car, the defendant exchanged text messages discussing drug prices, and the\\ndefendant had a 12-year-old conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana).\\n\\n In contrast, this court has held that an affidavit was sufficient to satisfy the Leon\\ngood-faith standard where the affidavit provided a material link between the criminal activity\\nalleged and the residence in question at the time of the search. See United States v. White, 874\\nF.3d 490, 494, 498 (6th Cir. 2017) (finding the Leon good-faith standard satisfied where the\\naffiant stated that officers received a tip that the defendant, who had an extensive criminal\\nhistory involving drugs, was selling drugs from his residence, and the officers initiated,\\nobserved, and recorded a controlled buy from the defendant in the driveway of the residence less\\nthan 72 hours before the affidavit was executed); United States v. Higgins, 557 F.3d 381, 391\\n(6th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the affidavit met the Leon good-faith standard where it stated\\nthat a named informant told officers that he had purchased drugs from the defendant’s residence\\nearlier that day); Frazier, 423 F.3d at 536 (finding the Leon good-faith standard satisfied when\\nthe affidavit reflected that two recorded controlled buys were conducted by an informant at the\\ndefendant’s previous residence seven months before the search, that drugs were found at the\\ndefendant’s previous residence two months before the search, that a named informant reported\\nbuying two pounds of marijuana from the defendant weekly, and that phone records showed that\\nthe defendant was in constant contact with known drug dealers); Carpenter, 360 F.3d at 593\\n(finding the Leon standard satisfied where the affidavit supporting a warrant to search the\\nresidence alleged that a police officer conducting an aerial search spotted numerous marijuana\\nplants directly connected by a road to the residence).\\n\\n Unlike the affidavit evidence considered in White, Higgins, Frazier, and Carpenter,\\nChristian’s criminal history and the January 2015 controlled buy do not establish a nexus\\nbetween the Residence and drug activity at the time of the search. Such a nexus is required for\\nthe Leon good-faith exception to apply. See Hython, 443 F.3d at 488–89.\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 43\\n\\n\\n And although closer in time to the execution of the search, the information received from\\nthe unidentified subjects indicating that Christian was engaged in large-scale drug trafficking\\nfrom the Residence was “so vague as to be conclusory or meaningless.” See Frazier, 423 F.3d at\\n536 (quoting Carpenter, 360 F.3d at 596). Where statements “are heavily discounted due to their\\nminimal trustworthiness and reliability, they add little to the probable cause determination” and,\\naccordingly, “a reasonable officer would recognize that without more corroboration,\\nthe . . . affidavit came well short of establishing probable cause.” United States v. Helton,\\n314 F.3d 812, 825 (6th Cir. 2003).\\n\\n An investigation by law-enforcement officers can corroborate tips of unknown reliability.\\nBut the observation of Thomas “walk[ing] away from the area” of the Residence before he was\\nlater found with heroin in his vehicle does not provide this additional corroboration. At best, the\\nobservation allows for only speculation that Thomas purchased the drugs from the Residence.\\nSuch speculation cannot reasonably be thought to support a finding of probable cause. See\\nWhite, 874 F.3d at 498 (noting that a bare-bones affidavit is one that contains “a mere\\naffirmation of suspicion and belief without any statement of adequate supporting facts” (quoting\\nNathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41, 46 (1933))). As a result, I conclude that no reasonable\\nofficer would have believed that the affidavit established probable cause to search the Residence\\nat the time the affidavit was executed.\\n\\n I also believe that my conclusion is in line with the policy behind the Leon good-faith\\nexception to the exclusionary rule. The majority argues that “this is a case in the very heartland\\nof the Leon exception,” and that “[t]his is a particularly egregious case to misapply the\\ngood-faith exception given the utter lack of police wrongdoing.” Maj. Op. 8, 10. I respectfully\\ndisagree. This court in United States v. McClain, 444 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2005), held that the\\nLeon exception applied because “[t]here was indeed nothing more that [the officer] ‘could have\\nor should have done under these circumstances to be sure his search would be legal.’” Id. at 566\\n(quoting United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1368 (2d Cir. 1985)).\\n\\n In the present case, however, the officers could have and should have done a lot more.\\nThere is no evidence in the affidavit that they engaged in ongoing or repeated surveillance,\\narranged subsequent controlled buys, or otherwise monitored for “hallmarks of drug dealing” at\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 44\\n\\n\\nthe Residence. See United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518, 527 (6th Cir. 2006); Hython,\\n443 F.3d at 486, 488–89. Suppressing the evidence in this case would incentivize police officers\\nto take such actions to corroborate unreliable information and describe such actions in their\\nsearch-warrant applications. Instead, the majority allows the Leon good-faith exception, which\\nwas intended to be applied only in “unique cases,” see McClain, 444 F.3d at 565, to excuse\\nsloppy police work.\\n\\n III. TELEPHONE-CALL EVIDENCE\\n\\n I will now briefly discuss Christian’s challenge to the district court’s decision to admit\\nthe recorded telephone call between Thomas and Thomas’s girlfriend, Tanisha Edwards. The\\nmajority concludes that, if the district erred in admitting this evidence, the error was harmless.\\nMaj. Op. 10–11. But the majority’s determination relies on its conclusion affirming the district\\ncourt’s decision to admit the evidence obtained in accordance with the search warrant. Because\\nI disagree and conclude that the court erred in admitting the evidence obtained pursuant to the\\nwarrant, I do not consider the court’s error regarding the phone-call evidence harmless.\\n\\n IV. CONCULSION\\n\\n In sum, considering the totality of the circumstances, I believe that the information in the\\naffidavit fails to establish probable cause and that the Leon good-faith exception does not apply.\\nI would therefore hold that the district court erred in denying Christian’s motion to suppress the\\nevidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4402522/\", \"author_raw\": \"409 F.3d at 751. Judge Thapar, concurring\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROGERS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"THAPAR"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROGERS"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625269/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone Dexter CHRISTIAN, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-31\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0111p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n > No. 17-1799\n v. │\n │\n │\n TYRONE DEXTER CHRISTIAN, │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.\n No. 1:15-cr-00172-1—Robert J. Jonker, Chief District Judge.\n\n Reargued En Banc: March 20, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: May 31, 2019\n\n Before: COLE, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GILMAN, GIBBONS, ROGERS,\n SUTTON,GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, STRANCH, DONALD, THAPAR, BUSH,\n LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nREARGUED EN BANC: Lucille A. Jewel, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, Knoxville,\nTennessee, for Appellant. Jennifer L. McManus, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,\nGrand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: Lucille A. Jewel,\nWilliam A. Beasley, Benjamin A. Johnson, Benjamin K.P. Merry, UNIVERSITY OF\nTENNESSEE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Jennifer L. McManus, Timothy P. Verhey,\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.\n\n ROGERS, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which GIBBONS, SUTTON,\nGRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, and\nMURPHY, JJ., joined, and WHITE, J., joined in the judgment. THAPAR, J. (pp. 12–19),\ndelivered a separate concurring opinion in which NALBANDIAN, MURPHY, and READLER,\nJJ., joined. WHITE, J. (pg. 20), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment and in\n\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 2\n\n\nPart I of the dissent. GILMAN, J. (pp. 21–44), delivered a separate dissenting opinion in which\nCOLE, C.J., MOORE, CLAY, STRANCH, and DONALD, JJ., joined, and WHITE, J., joined in\npart.\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Based on a five-page-long search-warrant affidavit—which\nincluded evidence from a confidential informant and other sources, a controlled buy, and direct\npolice-officer surveillance—a magistrate determined that there was probable cause to search\n618 Grandville Avenue, Tyrone Christian’s home, for evidence of drug trafficking. That search\nuncovered a large amount of heroin, some cocaine and marijuana, and two loaded guns.\nConvicted of various drug and firearm crimes, Christian argues on appeal that the search was not\nsupported by probable cause. Christian questions each factual assertion in the affidavit as\ninsufficient to show probable cause, while the Government contends that a common-sense\nexamination of the totality of the circumstances, in light of the deference that a court owes to\nwarrant-issuing magistrates, is required by cases like Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), and\nDistrict of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018). For the reasons that follow, the\ndistrict court properly denied Christian’s suppression motion.\n\n I.\n\n On September 3, 2015, Officer Thomas Bush, a law enforcement officer for the Grand\nRapids Police Department, submitted an affidavit in support of a search warrant for the residence\nof suspected drug trafficker Tyrone Christian at 618 Grandville Avenue in Grand Rapids,\nMichigan. The affidavit provided the following information in support of Officer Bush’s belief\nthat there was probable cause to search Christian’s home: (1) Christian had a history of drug\ntrafficking at 618 Grandville, which included drug-related arrests after two separate raids in 2009\nand 2011, along with four prior felony convictions for drug-related offenses between 1996 and\n2011; (2) a “credible and reliable” informant had contacted law enforcement in December 2014\nto notify them that Christian was dealing drugs; (3) law enforcement successfully conducted a\ncontrolled buy from Christian in January 2015; (4) between May and September 2015, four\n\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 3\n\n\ndifferent subjects told law enforcement that Christian was dealing drugs and that they had\npersonally purchased drugs from him; (5) law enforcement had established surveillance at 618\nGrandville and observed a man named Rueben Thomas “walk away from the area of [the\nresidence] and leave the area in a vehicle,” after which officers stopped Thomas and discovered\nheroin in his car; and (6) Thomas subsequently “admitted that he had recently been at an address\non [Grandville Avenue],” but he “denied being at [Christian’s residence] contrary to\nobservations of the law enforcement officers.”\n\n A magistrate judge approved the warrant, and police officers conducted a drug raid at\nChristian’s home just after midnight on September 4, 2015. During the raid, officers seized\ncocaine, marijuana, over 80 grams of heroin, a cutting agent, and two loaded guns. The\nGovernment charged Christian with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, being a felon\nin possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.\n\n Christian moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the September 3 search warrant.\nThe district court denied the motion, determining that the affidavit provided sufficient\ninformation to establish probable cause and that in any event the Leon good-faith exception\nwould apply regardless of the probable cause determination. A jury convicted Christian on all\ncounts, and the district court sentenced Christian to 210 months in prison.\n\n Christian now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that\nthe affidavit did not establish probable cause and that the Leon good-faith exception to the\nexclusionary rule should not apply. He also challenges the district court’s admission of\ntestimony about a jail call that occurred between Thomas and Thomas’s girlfriend, Tanisha\nEdwards, before Christian was arrested. Edwards testified during trial that she told Thomas that\nChristian “got the groceries out” of their house, where the “groceries” referred to a gun and\ndrugs. The Government introduced the testimony to help explain why law enforcement later\nfound a gun and drugs buried in the backyard behind the home of Christian’s mother.\n\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 4\n\n\n II.\n\n A.\n\n The search-warrant affidavit at issue here provided an ample basis for probable cause,\nand the question is really not even close. The affidavit first outlined Christian’s extensive history\nwith drugs—four felony drug convictions from 1996, 2002, 2009, and 2011, at least two of\nwhich were for drug trafficking. In 2009 and 2011, search warrants executed at Christian’s\nhome, 618 Grandville, the same place searched here, uncovered evidence of drug trafficking that\neach time resulted in Christian’s arrest.\n\n The affidavit next detailed the reasons why officers believed that Christian had gone back\ninto business. In December 2014, a “credible and reliable informant” advised Officer Bush, the\naffiant, that Christian was again dealing drugs. The informant also provided information about\nother traffickers, including “names, nicknames, phone numbers, residences utilized by the drug\ntraffickers and information regarding specific drug transactions.” Officer Bush independently\ncorroborated “much of the information provided” by this informant. In January 2015, under the\ndirection of Officer Bush, the informant executed a controlled purchase of drugs from Christian.\nIn addition, “[w]ithin the last four months” preceding the search, meaning from May to\nSeptember of 2015, several other informants stated that “Tyrone Christian is a large scale drug\ndealer” and that “they [had] purchased large quantities of heroin and crack cocaine from\nChristian at [his residence] in the last four to five months.”\n\n That brings us to September 3, 2015, the day of the search, when, according to the\naffidavit, officers established surveillance “at 618 Grandville Avenue.” The officers observed\nRueben Thomas “walk away from the area of 618 Grandville Avenue and leave the area in a\nvehicle.” After stopping him for a traffic violation, officers found “approximately 20 grams of\nheroin” in the form of “‘chunk[s]’ that appeared to have been removed from a larger portion of\nheroin.” Thomas denied having been at 618 Grandville but admitted having been at another\naddress on that street. Crucially, the affidavit recounted that Thomas’s denial was “contrary to\nobservations of the law enforcement officers.”\n\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 5\n\n\n Viewing the “totality of the circumstances,” Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 244 (2013),\nthrough the “lens of common sense,” as the Supreme Court has instructed, id. at 248, the\nconclusion is inescapable: there was probable cause to believe that a search of 618 Grandville\nwould uncover evidence of drug trafficking. Most readers of the affidavit would have been\nsurprised if it did not.\n\n Indeed, one element of the affidavit was independently sufficient for probable cause: the\nsurveillance of Rueben Thomas. Christian argues that there was no “nexus” between Thomas\nand 618 Grandville because the affidavit states merely that officers saw Thomas “walk away\nfrom the area of 618 Grandville Avenue,” rather than entering or leaving that residence. But that\nselective, out-of-context reading is contradicted even by other parts of the affidavit, which later\nstates that “Rueben Thomas . . . denied being at [the residence], contrary to observations of the\nlaw enforcement officers.” (Emphasis added.) While this is not a direct statement that Thomas\nwas seen entering or leaving 618 Grandville, the law does not require such a direct statement.\nIndeed, our precedents require us to eschew such a formal requirement. “Affidavits are not\nrequired to use magic words[.]” United States v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 975 (6th Cir. 2000) (en\nbanc). Because our job is not to reweigh the assertions in an affidavit but to ask whether the\nmagistrate had a substantial basis for his conclusion, United States v. Perry, 864 F.3d 412, 415\n(6th Cir. 2017), the later phrase in the affidavit cannot be read out of existence. Rather, the\ndeferential nature of our review means that we should take that later statement—i.e., that\nThomas’s denying that he was at 618 Grandville was “contrary to observations of the law\nenforcement officers”—to reconcile any doubt about where the officers saw Thomas walk away\nfrom.\n\n Under that proper view of the affidavit, and paying the appropriate “great deference” to\nthe magistrate’s probable-cause determination, Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, the surveillance evidence\nprovided a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Argument to the\ncontrary is unavailing. Any possible contradiction between “from the area of” and “contrary to\nobservations of the officers” is more readily attributable to the “haste of a criminal investigation”\nunder which officers often draft an affidavit supporting a search warrant. See id. at 235. Such\nhaste was certainly present here: Officer Bush applied for and received the warrant on the same\n\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 6\n\n\nday of the purportedly infirm surveillance and search. To boot, police officers are mostly non-\nlawyers who must draft search-warrant affidavits “on the basis of nontechnical, common-sense\njudgments.” Id. at 235–36. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps the affiant could have been\nmore precise. But our precedents do not require such an exacting degree of specificity. For\nexample, in our recent published opinion in United States v. Tagg, 886 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018),\nwe held that probable cause existed to search the defendant’s home for child pornography despite\nthe supporting documents’ failure to state that the defendant had actually clicked on or viewed an\nonline file containing child pornography. Id. at 585–90. In doing so, we explained that probable\ncause is not the same thing as proof. See id. at 589–90. Likewise, the affidavit here need not\nhave definitively stated that Thomas was seen leaving 618 Grandville. Rather, it need only have\n“allege[d] facts that create a reasonable probability” that he did. See id at 589. From there, the\nremaining inferences needed to connect 618 Grandville to Christian’s drug trafficking are quite\nstraightforward, given Christian’s history of dealing drugs and the officers’ finding heroin in\nThomas’s car. Under a common-sense reading of the affidavit, then, its description of the 618\nGrandville surveillance easily exceeds the “degree of suspicion,” id. at 586, needed to establish\nprobable cause.\n Moreover, the officers who saw Thomas were assigned to “establish[] [surveillance] at\n618 Grandville Avenue,” not the entire area around it. Assuming those officers were doing their\njobs, the fact that they saw Thomas at all probably means that he was very near 618 Grandville.\nAt the very least, that would be far from an arbitrary inference for a magistrate to draw. In\naddition, the heroin found in Thomas’s car appeared to “have been removed from a larger\nportion of heroin.” These facts further supported the magistrate’s determination that there was\nprobable cause to believe that evidence of drug dealing would be found at 618 Grandville.\n\n The affidavit hardly relies alone on the Thomas surveillance, however. There is also\nChristian’s lengthy history of dealing drugs from 618 Grandville, the controlled purchase from\n618 Grandville, and the numerous tips that Christian was recently dealing large quantities of\ndrugs from 618 Grandville, all of which provide further evidence still that probable cause\nexisted. When it comes to probable cause, “the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts—\nespecially when the parts are viewed in isolation.” See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 588 (citing United\nStates v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277–78 (2002)). Even if each of these additional items would not\n\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 7\n\n\nsuffice to establish probable cause on its own, each factual allegation—whether ultimately\ndeficient or not—is still a relevant data point in the “totality of the circumstances” constellation,\nrather than an independent thing to be lined up and shot down one by one. As in Wesby, where\nthe Supreme Court firmly repudiated the Court of Appeals’ attempt to isolate and explain away\neach piece of evidence, here too “the totality of the circumstances gave the officers plenty of\nreasons,” 138 S. Ct. at 589, to believe that there was evidence of drug trafficking in Christian’s\nhome.\n Probable cause therefore existed, and it is not a close call. The opposite conclusion can\nbe reached only by engaging in the kind of “hypertechnical[,] . . . line-by-line scrutiny,” United\nStates v. Woosley, 361 F.3d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 2004), of the affidavit explicitly forbidden by the\nSupreme Court, see Gates, 462 U.S. at 235–36, 245 n.14. In Wesby, the Court explained that\n“this kind of divide-and-conquer approach is improper,” because “[a] factor viewed in isolation\nis often more ‘readily susceptible to an innocent explanation’ than one viewed as part of a\ntotality.” 138 S. Ct. at 589 (quoting Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274). That is the case here too, where\nalone some parts of the affidavit might be criticized but taken together they point clearly to one\nconclusion: that Christian was dealing drugs from 618 Grandville.\n\n We are accordingly compelled to hold that there was probable cause in this case,\nespecially given the undemanding character of the probable-cause standard and the deferential\nnature of our review. Probable cause “requires only a probability or substantial chance of\ncriminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.” Tagg, 886 F.3d at 585 (quoting\nWesby, 138 S. Ct. at 586). Time and again the Supreme Court has emphasized that “[p]robable\ncause ‘is not a high bar’” to clear. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 586 (quoting Kaley v. United States,\n571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014)). Where, as here, a magistrate has issued a search warrant based on\nprobable cause, we “do[] not write on a blank slate.” Tagg, 886 F.3d at 586. Rather, the\nmagistrate’s probable-cause determination “should be paid great deference,” Gates, 462 U.S. at\n236 (quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419 (1969)), and we overturn that decision\nonly “if the magistrate arbitrarily exercised his or her authority,” United States v. Brown,\n732 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 478 (6th Cir.\n2001)). We are “not permitted to attempt a de novo review of probable cause.” Tagg, 886 F.3d\n\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 8\n\n\nat 586 (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 238–39; United States v. King, 227 F.3d 732, 739 (6th Cir.\n2000)).\n\n The conclusion that probable cause existed to search Christian’s home is compelled,\nmoreover, by our recent published decision in United States v. Hines, 885 F.3d 919 (6th Cir.\n2018), in which we emphasized the importance of the totality-of-the-circumstances approach:\n“Not all search warrant affidavits include the same ingredients,” we said before recognizing that\n“[i]t is the mix that courts review to decide whether evidence generated from the search may be\nused or must be suppressed.” Id. at 921–22. The affidavit at issue in Hines, like the one here,\nwas substantial. Both included, among other things, recent evidence of drug-related activity:\nthere, a confidential informant’s statement that one day earlier he had seen drugs at the\nsubsequently searched home; here, the officers’ finding heroin in Thomas’s car after having\nobserved his leaving 618 Grandville. But the takeaway from Hines most salient here is\nmethodological, not analogical: Hines requires us to look holistically at what the affidavit does\nshow, instead of focusing on what the affidavit does not contain, or the flaws of each individual\ncomponent of the affidavit. Doing the former establishes probable cause here. Rejecting\nprobable cause on the affidavit in this case would therefore fly in the face of Hines, a well-\nreasoned precedential decision.\n\n B.\n Apart from whether the affidavit contained enough to establish probable cause,\nChristian’s suppression motion was properly denied because of the good-faith exception of\nUnited States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Under Leon, the exclusionary rule does not bar from\nadmission “evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that is\nsubsequently held to be defective.” Id. at 905. If somehow the affidavit at issue here could be\ndeemed insufficient to establish probable cause, then this is a case in the very heartland of the\nLeon exception. Contrary to Christian’s argument, the affidavit was not “bare bones.” We\nreserve that label for an affidavit that merely “states suspicions, or conclusions, without\nproviding some underlying factual circumstances regarding veracity, reliability, and basis of\nknowledge.” United States v. Washington, 380 F.3d 236, 241 n.4 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting\nUnited States v. Van Shutters, 163 F.3d 331, 337 (6th Cir. 1998)). To further describe the bare-\n\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 9\n\n\nbones standard is to show why it does not apply here. We have said that, to be considered bare\nbones, an affidavit must be “so lacking in indicia of probable cause” as to make an officer’s\n“belief in its existence [ ] objectively unreasonable.” United States v. Laughton, 409 F.3d 744,\n748 (6th Cir. 2005). In United States v. Williams, 224 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2000), we described\nhow woefully deficient an affidavit must be before it meets this standard:\n\n An example of a “bare bones” affidavit is found in Gates, 462 U.S. at 239, where\n the Court, pointing to one from Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41 (1933),\n said, “A sworn statement of an affiant that ‘he has cause to suspect and does\n believe that’ liquor illegally brought into the United States is located on certain\n premises will not do.” Another illustration was taken from Aguilar v. Texas, 378\n U.S. 108 (1964), that “[a]n officer’s statement that ‘affiants have received reliable\n information from a credible person and believe’ that heroin is stored in a home, is\n likewise inadequate.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 239. Thus, a “bare bones” affidavit is\n similar to, if not the same as, a conclusory affidavit. It is “one which states ‘only\n the affiant’s belief that probable cause existed.’” United States v. Finch, 998 F.2d\n 349, 353 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Ciammitti, 720 F.2d 927, 932\n (6th Cir. 1983)).\n\nWilliams, 224 F.3d at 533.\n\n Although one can split hairs with the affidavit in this case, it is impossible to deny that it\ncontains factual allegations, not just suspicions or conclusions. Importantly, each factual\nallegation, regardless of any infirmities, at least purports to link Christian to drug trafficking at\n618 Grandville. An affidavit need only present “some connection, regardless of how remote it\nmay have been,” United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 497 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Laughton,\n409 F.3d at 749–50), or, in other words, establish a “minimally sufficient nexus between the\nillegal activity and the place to be searched,” United States v. Brown, 828 F.3d 375, 385 (6th\nCir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591, 596 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc)), to\navoid the bare-bones designation and thus be one upon which an officer can rely in good faith.\nThe affidavit here necessarily satisfies this low requirement. To hold otherwise would be to\nequate the five-page, extensively sourced affidavit here with the short, conclusory, and self-\nserving ones for which the bare-bones designation ought to be reserved.\n\n Our decision in United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2006), is almost\ncompletely inapposite here. We held there that the affidavit—which recounted only a single,\n\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 10\n\n\nundated controlled purchase—did not satisfy the good-faith exception. Id. at 486, 488–89.\nAlthough the affidavit linking 618 Grandville to drug dealing did include information about a\ncontrolled purchase that Christian contends was stale, any similarity between this case and\nHython ends there. This case is like Hython only if, engaging in the methodological error\nforbidden by the Supreme Court in Wesby, one completely ignores most of the affidavit by\ndiscounting each item one by one. Indeed, Hython by negative inference supports the existence\nof good-faith reliance here by showing just how unsubstantiated an affidavit must be to fail to\nqualify under Leon’s good-faith exception.\n\n This is a particularly egregious case to misapply the good-faith exception given the utter\nlack of police wrongdoing. The “exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather\nthan to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 916. As the Supreme\nCourt explained in Leon, “the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing\nevidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search\nwarrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion.” Id. at 922. This balance supports the\nprinciple that, as we said in Carpenter, the good-faith exception requires “a less demanding\nshowing than the ‘substantial basis’ threshold required to prove the existence of probable cause\nin the first place.” 360 F.3d at 595–96 (quoting United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 195 (4th\nCir. 2002) (citation omitted)). Refusing to adhere to those decisions in a case like Christian’s\nwould unduly exalt the Fourth Amendment interest marginally served by deterring nonculpable\nconduct over the public interest in combatting crime—and would amount to effective disregard\nof Supreme Court precedent as well as our own.\n\n C.\n\n Finally, it is questionable to conclude that the district court erred by admitting the\nchallenged telephone-call evidence. In any event, we may affirm if we can say with “fair\nassurance” that any such error did not “substantially sway[]” the judgment. Kotteakos v. United\nStates, 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946). That is the case here. As explained above, the evidence\nobtained in accordance with the search warrant was properly admitted. Because suppression was\ncorrectly denied, the jury properly heard, for example, evidence that officers found 70 grams of\nheroin next to two loaded guns in Christian’s basement and cocaine and marijuana in other parts\n\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 11\n\n\nof the house, that the DNA found on one of the guns matched Christian’s, and that Christian’s\ncell phone contained text messages about drug trafficking. Considering that evidence, the phone\ncall added relatively little: it connected Thomas and Christian, which provided a basis for the\njury to conclude that Christian had sold drugs to Thomas, and it linked Christian to a third gun.\nBut even had that evidence not been admitted, no jury could have acquitted Christian on these\ncharges. The evidence against him was too damning. Admitting the phone-call statements was\ntherefore harmless.\n\n III.\n\n The judgment of the district court is affirmed.\n\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 12\n\n\n _________________\n\n CONCURRENCE\n _________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone Dexter CHRISTIAN, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-31\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0111p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 17-1799\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n TYRONE DEXTER CHRISTIAN, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.\\n No. 1:15-cr-00172-1—Robert J. Jonker, Chief District Judge.\\n\\n Reargued En Banc: March 20, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: May 31, 2019\\n\\n Before: COLE, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GILMAN, GIBBONS, ROGERS,\\n SUTTON,GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, STRANCH, DONALD, THAPAR, BUSH,\\n LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nREARGUED EN BANC: Lucille A. Jewel, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, Knoxville,\\nTennessee, for Appellant. Jennifer L. McManus, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,\\nGrand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: Lucille A. Jewel,\\nWilliam A. Beasley, Benjamin A. Johnson, Benjamin K.P. Merry, UNIVERSITY OF\\nTENNESSEE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Jennifer L. McManus, Timothy P. Verhey,\\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n\\n ROGERS, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which GIBBONS, SUTTON,\\nGRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, and\\nMURPHY, JJ., joined, and WHITE, J., joined in the judgment. THAPAR, J. (pp. 12–19),\\ndelivered a separate concurring opinion in which NALBANDIAN, MURPHY, and READLER,\\nJJ., joined. WHITE, J. (pg. 20), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment and in\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 2\\n\\n\\nPart I of the dissent. GILMAN, J. (pp. 21–44), delivered a separate dissenting opinion in which\\nCOLE, C.J., MOORE, CLAY, STRANCH, and DONALD, JJ., joined, and WHITE, J., joined in\\npart.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Based on a five-page-long search-warrant affidavit—which\\nincluded evidence from a confidential informant and other sources, a controlled buy, and direct\\npolice-officer surveillance—a magistrate determined that there was probable cause to search\\n618 Grandville Avenue, Tyrone Christian’s home, for evidence of drug trafficking. That search\\nuncovered a large amount of heroin, some cocaine and marijuana, and two loaded guns.\\nConvicted of various drug and firearm crimes, Christian argues on appeal that the search was not\\nsupported by probable cause. Christian questions each factual assertion in the affidavit as\\ninsufficient to show probable cause, while the Government contends that a common-sense\\nexamination of the totality of the circumstances, in light of the deference that a court owes to\\nwarrant-issuing magistrates, is required by cases like Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), and\\nDistrict of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018). For the reasons that follow, the\\ndistrict court properly denied Christian’s suppression motion.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n On September 3, 2015, Officer Thomas Bush, a law enforcement officer for the Grand\\nRapids Police Department, submitted an affidavit in support of a search warrant for the residence\\nof suspected drug trafficker Tyrone Christian at 618 Grandville Avenue in Grand Rapids,\\nMichigan. The affidavit provided the following information in support of Officer Bush’s belief\\nthat there was probable cause to search Christian’s home: (1) Christian had a history of drug\\ntrafficking at 618 Grandville, which included drug-related arrests after two separate raids in 2009\\nand 2011, along with four prior felony convictions for drug-related offenses between 1996 and\\n2011; (2) a “credible and reliable” informant had contacted law enforcement in December 2014\\nto notify them that Christian was dealing drugs; (3) law enforcement successfully conducted a\\ncontrolled buy from Christian in January 2015; (4) between May and September 2015, four\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 3\\n\\n\\ndifferent subjects told law enforcement that Christian was dealing drugs and that they had\\npersonally purchased drugs from him; (5) law enforcement had established surveillance at 618\\nGrandville and observed a man named Rueben Thomas “walk away from the area of [the\\nresidence] and leave the area in a vehicle,” after which officers stopped Thomas and discovered\\nheroin in his car; and (6) Thomas subsequently “admitted that he had recently been at an address\\non [Grandville Avenue],” but he “denied being at [Christian’s residence] contrary to\\nobservations of the law enforcement officers.”\\n\\n A magistrate judge approved the warrant, and police officers conducted a drug raid at\\nChristian’s home just after midnight on September 4, 2015. During the raid, officers seized\\ncocaine, marijuana, over 80 grams of heroin, a cutting agent, and two loaded guns. The\\nGovernment charged Christian with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, being a felon\\nin possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.\\n\\n Christian moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the September 3 search warrant.\\nThe district court denied the motion, determining that the affidavit provided sufficient\\ninformation to establish probable cause and that in any event the Leon good-faith exception\\nwould apply regardless of the probable cause determination. A jury convicted Christian on all\\ncounts, and the district court sentenced Christian to 210 months in prison.\\n\\n Christian now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that\\nthe affidavit did not establish probable cause and that the Leon good-faith exception to the\\nexclusionary rule should not apply. He also challenges the district court’s admission of\\ntestimony about a jail call that occurred between Thomas and Thomas’s girlfriend, Tanisha\\nEdwards, before Christian was arrested. Edwards testified during trial that she told Thomas that\\nChristian “got the groceries out” of their house, where the “groceries” referred to a gun and\\ndrugs. The Government introduced the testimony to help explain why law enforcement later\\nfound a gun and drugs buried in the backyard behind the home of Christian’s mother.\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 4\\n\\n\\n II.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n The search-warrant affidavit at issue here provided an ample basis for probable cause,\\nand the question is really not even close. The affidavit first outlined Christian’s extensive history\\nwith drugs—four felony drug convictions from 1996, 2002, 2009, and 2011, at least two of\\nwhich were for drug trafficking. In 2009 and 2011, search warrants executed at Christian’s\\nhome, 618 Grandville, the same place searched here, uncovered evidence of drug trafficking that\\neach time resulted in Christian’s arrest.\\n\\n The affidavit next detailed the reasons why officers believed that Christian had gone back\\ninto business. In December 2014, a “credible and reliable informant” advised Officer Bush, the\\naffiant, that Christian was again dealing drugs. The informant also provided information about\\nother traffickers, including “names, nicknames, phone numbers, residences utilized by the drug\\ntraffickers and information regarding specific drug transactions.” Officer Bush independently\\ncorroborated “much of the information provided” by this informant. In January 2015, under the\\ndirection of Officer Bush, the informant executed a controlled purchase of drugs from Christian.\\nIn addition, “[w]ithin the last four months” preceding the search, meaning from May to\\nSeptember of 2015, several other informants stated that “Tyrone Christian is a large scale drug\\ndealer” and that “they [had] purchased large quantities of heroin and crack cocaine from\\nChristian at [his residence] in the last four to five months.”\\n\\n That brings us to September 3, 2015, the day of the search, when, according to the\\naffidavit, officers established surveillance “at 618 Grandville Avenue.” The officers observed\\nRueben Thomas “walk away from the area of 618 Grandville Avenue and leave the area in a\\nvehicle.” After stopping him for a traffic violation, officers found “approximately 20 grams of\\nheroin” in the form of “‘chunk[s]’ that appeared to have been removed from a larger portion of\\nheroin.” Thomas denied having been at 618 Grandville but admitted having been at another\\naddress on that street. Crucially, the affidavit recounted that Thomas’s denial was “contrary to\\nobservations of the law enforcement officers.”\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 5\\n\\n\\n Viewing the “totality of the circumstances,” Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 244 (2013),\\nthrough the “lens of common sense,” as the Supreme Court has instructed, id. at 248, the\\nconclusion is inescapable: there was probable cause to believe that a search of 618 Grandville\\nwould uncover evidence of drug trafficking. Most readers of the affidavit would have been\\nsurprised if it did not.\\n\\n Indeed, one element of the affidavit was independently sufficient for probable cause: the\\nsurveillance of Rueben Thomas. Christian argues that there was no “nexus” between Thomas\\nand 618 Grandville because the affidavit states merely that officers saw Thomas “walk away\\nfrom the area of 618 Grandville Avenue,” rather than entering or leaving that residence. But that\\nselective, out-of-context reading is contradicted even by other parts of the affidavit, which later\\nstates that “Rueben Thomas . . . denied being at [the residence], contrary to observations of the\\nlaw enforcement officers.” (Emphasis added.) While this is not a direct statement that Thomas\\nwas seen entering or leaving 618 Grandville, the law does not require such a direct statement.\\nIndeed, our precedents require us to eschew such a formal requirement. “Affidavits are not\\nrequired to use magic words[.]” United States v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 975 (6th Cir. 2000) (en\\nbanc). Because our job is not to reweigh the assertions in an affidavit but to ask whether the\\nmagistrate had a substantial basis for his conclusion, United States v. Perry, 864 F.3d 412, 415\\n(6th Cir. 2017), the later phrase in the affidavit cannot be read out of existence. Rather, the\\ndeferential nature of our review means that we should take that later statement—i.e., that\\nThomas’s denying that he was at 618 Grandville was “contrary to observations of the law\\nenforcement officers”—to reconcile any doubt about where the officers saw Thomas walk away\\nfrom.\\n\\n Under that proper view of the affidavit, and paying the appropriate “great deference” to\\nthe magistrate’s probable-cause determination, Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, the surveillance evidence\\nprovided a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Argument to the\\ncontrary is unavailing. Any possible contradiction between “from the area of” and “contrary to\\nobservations of the officers” is more readily attributable to the “haste of a criminal investigation”\\nunder which officers often draft an affidavit supporting a search warrant. See id. at 235. Such\\nhaste was certainly present here: Officer Bush applied for and received the warrant on the same\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 6\\n\\n\\nday of the purportedly infirm surveillance and search. To boot, police officers are mostly non-\\nlawyers who must draft search-warrant affidavits “on the basis of nontechnical, common-sense\\njudgments.” Id. at 235–36. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps the affiant could have been\\nmore precise. But our precedents do not require such an exacting degree of specificity. For\\nexample, in our recent published opinion in United States v. Tagg, 886 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018),\\nwe held that probable cause existed to search the defendant’s home for child pornography despite\\nthe supporting documents’ failure to state that the defendant had actually clicked on or viewed an\\nonline file containing child pornography. Id. at 585–90. In doing so, we explained that probable\\ncause is not the same thing as proof. See id. at 589–90. Likewise, the affidavit here need not\\nhave definitively stated that Thomas was seen leaving 618 Grandville. Rather, it need only have\\n“allege[d] facts that create a reasonable probability” that he did. See id at 589. From there, the\\nremaining inferences needed to connect 618 Grandville to Christian’s drug trafficking are quite\\nstraightforward, given Christian’s history of dealing drugs and the officers’ finding heroin in\\nThomas’s car. Under a common-sense reading of the affidavit, then, its description of the 618\\nGrandville surveillance easily exceeds the “degree of suspicion,” id. at 586, needed to establish\\nprobable cause.\\n Moreover, the officers who saw Thomas were assigned to “establish[] [surveillance] at\\n618 Grandville Avenue,” not the entire area around it. Assuming those officers were doing their\\njobs, the fact that they saw Thomas at all probably means that he was very near 618 Grandville.\\nAt the very least, that would be far from an arbitrary inference for a magistrate to draw. In\\naddition, the heroin found in Thomas’s car appeared to “have been removed from a larger\\nportion of heroin.” These facts further supported the magistrate’s determination that there was\\nprobable cause to believe that evidence of drug dealing would be found at 618 Grandville.\\n\\n The affidavit hardly relies alone on the Thomas surveillance, however. There is also\\nChristian’s lengthy history of dealing drugs from 618 Grandville, the controlled purchase from\\n618 Grandville, and the numerous tips that Christian was recently dealing large quantities of\\ndrugs from 618 Grandville, all of which provide further evidence still that probable cause\\nexisted. When it comes to probable cause, “the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts—\\nespecially when the parts are viewed in isolation.” See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 588 (citing United\\nStates v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277–78 (2002)). Even if each of these additional items would not\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 7\\n\\n\\nsuffice to establish probable cause on its own, each factual allegation—whether ultimately\\ndeficient or not—is still a relevant data point in the “totality of the circumstances” constellation,\\nrather than an independent thing to be lined up and shot down one by one. As in Wesby, where\\nthe Supreme Court firmly repudiated the Court of Appeals’ attempt to isolate and explain away\\neach piece of evidence, here too “the totality of the circumstances gave the officers plenty of\\nreasons,” 138 S. Ct. at 589, to believe that there was evidence of drug trafficking in Christian’s\\nhome.\\n Probable cause therefore existed, and it is not a close call. The opposite conclusion can\\nbe reached only by engaging in the kind of “hypertechnical[,] . . . line-by-line scrutiny,” United\\nStates v. Woosley, 361 F.3d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 2004), of the affidavit explicitly forbidden by the\\nSupreme Court, see Gates, 462 U.S. at 235–36, 245 n.14. In Wesby, the Court explained that\\n“this kind of divide-and-conquer approach is improper,” because “[a] factor viewed in isolation\\nis often more ‘readily susceptible to an innocent explanation’ than one viewed as part of a\\ntotality.” 138 S. Ct. at 589 (quoting Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274). That is the case here too, where\\nalone some parts of the affidavit might be criticized but taken together they point clearly to one\\nconclusion: that Christian was dealing drugs from 618 Grandville.\\n\\n We are accordingly compelled to hold that there was probable cause in this case,\\nespecially given the undemanding character of the probable-cause standard and the deferential\\nnature of our review. Probable cause “requires only a probability or substantial chance of\\ncriminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.” Tagg, 886 F.3d at 585 (quoting\\nWesby, 138 S. Ct. at 586). Time and again the Supreme Court has emphasized that “[p]robable\\ncause ‘is not a high bar’” to clear. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 586 (quoting Kaley v. United States,\\n571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014)). Where, as here, a magistrate has issued a search warrant based on\\nprobable cause, we “do[] not write on a blank slate.” Tagg, 886 F.3d at 586. Rather, the\\nmagistrate’s probable-cause determination “should be paid great deference,” Gates, 462 U.S. at\\n236 (quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419 (1969)), and we overturn that decision\\nonly “if the magistrate arbitrarily exercised his or her authority,” United States v. Brown,\\n732 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 478 (6th Cir.\\n2001)). We are “not permitted to attempt a de novo review of probable cause.” Tagg, 886 F.3d\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 8\\n\\n\\nat 586 (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 238–39; United States v. King, 227 F.3d 732, 739 (6th Cir.\\n2000)).\\n\\n The conclusion that probable cause existed to search Christian’s home is compelled,\\nmoreover, by our recent published decision in United States v. Hines, 885 F.3d 919 (6th Cir.\\n2018), in which we emphasized the importance of the totality-of-the-circumstances approach:\\n“Not all search warrant affidavits include the same ingredients,” we said before recognizing that\\n“[i]t is the mix that courts review to decide whether evidence generated from the search may be\\nused or must be suppressed.” Id. at 921–22. The affidavit at issue in Hines, like the one here,\\nwas substantial. Both included, among other things, recent evidence of drug-related activity:\\nthere, a confidential informant’s statement that one day earlier he had seen drugs at the\\nsubsequently searched home; here, the officers’ finding heroin in Thomas’s car after having\\nobserved his leaving 618 Grandville. But the takeaway from Hines most salient here is\\nmethodological, not analogical: Hines requires us to look holistically at what the affidavit does\\nshow, instead of focusing on what the affidavit does not contain, or the flaws of each individual\\ncomponent of the affidavit. Doing the former establishes probable cause here. Rejecting\\nprobable cause on the affidavit in this case would therefore fly in the face of Hines, a well-\\nreasoned precedential decision.\\n\\n B.\\n Apart from whether the affidavit contained enough to establish probable cause,\\nChristian’s suppression motion was properly denied because of the good-faith exception of\\nUnited States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Under Leon, the exclusionary rule does not bar from\\nadmission “evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that is\\nsubsequently held to be defective.” Id. at 905. If somehow the affidavit at issue here could be\\ndeemed insufficient to establish probable cause, then this is a case in the very heartland of the\\nLeon exception. Contrary to Christian’s argument, the affidavit was not “bare bones.” We\\nreserve that label for an affidavit that merely “states suspicions, or conclusions, without\\nproviding some underlying factual circumstances regarding veracity, reliability, and basis of\\nknowledge.” United States v. Washington, 380 F.3d 236, 241 n.4 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting\\nUnited States v. Van Shutters, 163 F.3d 331, 337 (6th Cir. 1998)). To further describe the bare-\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 9\\n\\n\\nbones standard is to show why it does not apply here. We have said that, to be considered bare\\nbones, an affidavit must be “so lacking in indicia of probable cause” as to make an officer’s\\n“belief in its existence [ ] objectively unreasonable.” United States v. Laughton, 409 F.3d 744,\\n748 (6th Cir. 2005). In United States v. Williams, 224 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2000), we described\\nhow woefully deficient an affidavit must be before it meets this standard:\\n\\n An example of a “bare bones” affidavit is found in Gates, 462 U.S. at 239, where\\n the Court, pointing to one from Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41 (1933),\\n said, “A sworn statement of an affiant that ‘he has cause to suspect and does\\n believe that’ liquor illegally brought into the United States is located on certain\\n premises will not do.” Another illustration was taken from Aguilar v. Texas, 378\\n U.S. 108 (1964), that “[a]n officer’s statement that ‘affiants have received reliable\\n information from a credible person and believe’ that heroin is stored in a home, is\\n likewise inadequate.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 239. Thus, a “bare bones” affidavit is\\n similar to, if not the same as, a conclusory affidavit. It is “one which states ‘only\\n the affiant’s belief that probable cause existed.’” United States v. Finch, 998 F.2d\\n 349, 353 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Ciammitti, 720 F.2d 927, 932\\n (6th Cir. 1983)).\\n\\nWilliams, 224 F.3d at 533.\\n\\n Although one can split hairs with the affidavit in this case, it is impossible to deny that it\\ncontains factual allegations, not just suspicions or conclusions. Importantly, each factual\\nallegation, regardless of any infirmities, at least purports to link Christian to drug trafficking at\\n618 Grandville. An affidavit need only present “some connection, regardless of how remote it\\nmay have been,” United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 497 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Laughton,\\n409 F.3d at 749–50), or, in other words, establish a “minimally sufficient nexus between the\\nillegal activity and the place to be searched,” United States v. Brown, 828 F.3d 375, 385 (6th\\nCir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591, 596 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc)), to\\navoid the bare-bones designation and thus be one upon which an officer can rely in good faith.\\nThe affidavit here necessarily satisfies this low requirement. To hold otherwise would be to\\nequate the five-page, extensively sourced affidavit here with the short, conclusory, and self-\\nserving ones for which the bare-bones designation ought to be reserved.\\n\\n Our decision in United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2006), is almost\\ncompletely inapposite here. We held there that the affidavit—which recounted only a single,\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 10\\n\\n\\nundated controlled purchase—did not satisfy the good-faith exception. Id. at 486, 488–89.\\nAlthough the affidavit linking 618 Grandville to drug dealing did include information about a\\ncontrolled purchase that Christian contends was stale, any similarity between this case and\\nHython ends there. This case is like Hython only if, engaging in the methodological error\\nforbidden by the Supreme Court in Wesby, one completely ignores most of the affidavit by\\ndiscounting each item one by one. Indeed, Hython by negative inference supports the existence\\nof good-faith reliance here by showing just how unsubstantiated an affidavit must be to fail to\\nqualify under Leon’s good-faith exception.\\n\\n This is a particularly egregious case to misapply the good-faith exception given the utter\\nlack of police wrongdoing. The “exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather\\nthan to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 916. As the Supreme\\nCourt explained in Leon, “the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing\\nevidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search\\nwarrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion.” Id. at 922. This balance supports the\\nprinciple that, as we said in Carpenter, the good-faith exception requires “a less demanding\\nshowing than the ‘substantial basis’ threshold required to prove the existence of probable cause\\nin the first place.” 360 F.3d at 595–96 (quoting United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 195 (4th\\nCir. 2002) (citation omitted)). Refusing to adhere to those decisions in a case like Christian’s\\nwould unduly exalt the Fourth Amendment interest marginally served by deterring nonculpable\\nconduct over the public interest in combatting crime—and would amount to effective disregard\\nof Supreme Court precedent as well as our own.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n Finally, it is questionable to conclude that the district court erred by admitting the\\nchallenged telephone-call evidence. In any event, we may affirm if we can say with “fair\\nassurance” that any such error did not “substantially sway[]” the judgment. Kotteakos v. United\\nStates, 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946). That is the case here. As explained above, the evidence\\nobtained in accordance with the search warrant was properly admitted. Because suppression was\\ncorrectly denied, the jury properly heard, for example, evidence that officers found 70 grams of\\nheroin next to two loaded guns in Christian’s basement and cocaine and marijuana in other parts\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 11\\n\\n\\nof the house, that the DNA found on one of the guns matched Christian’s, and that Christian’s\\ncell phone contained text messages about drug trafficking. Considering that evidence, the phone\\ncall added relatively little: it connected Thomas and Christian, which provided a basis for the\\njury to conclude that Christian had sold drugs to Thomas, and it linked Christian to a third gun.\\nBut even had that evidence not been admitted, no jury could have acquitted Christian on these\\ncharges. The evidence against him was too damning. Admitting the phone-call statements was\\ntherefore harmless.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n The judgment of the district court is affirmed.\\n\\n No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 12\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE\\n _________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2099,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4615754,"string":"4,615,754"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Walter Goudy v. Rodney Cummings"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-05-01"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3665"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and SYKES and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Diane Pamela Wood\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐3665 \\nWALTER GOUDY, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \\n v. \\n\\nRODNEY J. CUMMINGS, et al., \\n Defendants‐Appellees. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. \\n No. 1:12‐cv‐00161‐SEB‐TAB — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 30, 2018 — DECIDED MAY 1, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and SYKES and BARRETT, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n WOOD, Chief Judge. In 1963 the Supreme Court announced \\nthat the prosecution team has a duty under the Due Process \\nClause of the Fourteenth Amendment to turn over material, \\nexculpatory evidence to criminal defendants. Brady v. Mary‐\\nland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 \\n(1995); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). Walter \\nGoudy contends in this case that the state and local officials \\n\\f2 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\nwho pursued him for a 1993 murder failed to comply with \\ntheir Brady obligations, and that he is entitled to damages un‐\\nder 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the years he spent in prison. That re‐\\nquest was based on his success in an earlier round of litiga‐\\ntion, which culminated with this court’s ruling that Goudy \\nwas entitled to a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. \\nGoudy v. Basinger, 604 F.3d 394 (7th Cir. 2010) (Goudy I). The \\nstate elected not to re‐try him; he was released; and 17 months \\nlater he filed this suit. \\n The district court winnowed the section 1983 action down \\nto three allegations that the investigators in the case violated \\nhis due process rights, by (1) subjecting him to an improper \\nshow‐up procedure, (2) withholding a videotape showing a \\nline‐up in which several witnesses identified a different per‐\\nson as the shooter, and (3) withholding interview notes show‐\\ning that the other suspect initially had denied any involve‐\\nment in the murder, but later switched his story. The court \\ngranted summary judgment for the defendants on all aspects \\nof the case. We conclude that this was premature: Goudy pre‐\\nsented enough evidence on the second and third arguments \\nto move forward. We therefore reverse and remand for fur‐\\nther proceedings. \\n I \\n We can be brief about the underlying incident, which was \\ndescribed by both the Indiana Supreme Court, in Goudy v. \\nState, 689 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 1997), and by this court in our 2010 \\nopinion. On October 3, 1993, two men fired shots into a car \\noccupied by several people, including Marvin McCloud and \\nDamon Nunn. The shooters killed McCloud, who had been \\ndriving, and seriously injured Nunn. A number of people \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 3\\n\\nwitnessed these events, including Jill Barclay, Jackie Barclay \\n(Jill’s sister), LaTonya Young, and Kaidi Harvell. \\n Police from Anderson, Indiana, where the shooting had \\ntaken place, picked up Goudy at the Oasis Club on February \\n5, 1994, after they received an anonymous tip that one of the \\nshooters was there. One of the defendants, Detective Rodney \\nCummings, contacted Jill Barclay and asked her to come to \\nthe police station to make an identification. When she arrived \\nat the station, Detective Steve Napier, Cummings’s partner \\nand the other defendant here, told her that they were going to \\nshow her a suspect in the shooting. Cummings then brought \\nJill into a room with a one‐way mirror and showed her \\nGoudy; she identified him as one of the shooters. She then \\ntalked to Jackie and told him that the shooter she saw looked \\nlike one of their acquaintances. \\n Our focus, however, is on evidence that the jury never \\nheard, because the state never disclosed it to Goudy. First, the \\nstate had three police reports that contained pertinent infor‐\\nmation. We discussed these reports in our 2010 opinion: \\n The first report describes a phone call to police from \\n Jill Barclay in which she said she saw one of the gun‐\\n men at an Indianapolis mall. She stated that she \\n thought he kept looking at her “over his shoulder” and \\n that she later saw him outside “attempting to look at \\n her license plate.” She later identified this man as \\n [Kaidi] Harvell and said she was positive he was one \\n of the gunmen. \\n604 F.3d at 397. The first police report also included infor‐\\nmation about a photo spread that Jill Barclay, Jackie Barclay \\n(Jill’s sister), and LaTonya Young viewed. Jackie and LaTonya \\n\\f4 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\nsaw the shooting from across the street. All three women \\n“’positively and without hesitation’ identified Harvell as the \\ngunman on the driver’s side of McCloud’s car, and said he \\nwore brown clothing.” Id. \\n In addition to the photo lineup, there was an in‐person \\nlineup viewed by Nunn, Jill and Jackie Barclay, as well as an‐\\nother witness, Donzetta Clay (who did not testify at trial). \\nOnce again, the results favored Goudy: “Clay and the Barclay \\nsisters identified Harvell; Nunn identified a non‐suspect as \\nthe shooter.” Id. Moreover, Goudy’s own counsel failed to in‐\\ntroduce a video confession by Goudy’s lookalike half‐brother, \\nRomeo Lee. In that video, Lee identified himself and Harvell \\nas the two shooters. \\n As we noted, after his conviction for murdering McCloud \\nand attempting to murder Nunn, Goudy sought post‐\\nconviction relief. He argued throughout these proceedings \\nthat the state’s failure to comply with Brady had deprived him \\nof a fair trial and that he had received ineffective assistance of \\ncounsel in violation of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 \\n(1984). \\n Goudy was unsuccessful in the state courts, but in Goudy I \\nwe found that the suppressed evidence was both favorable to \\nGoudy’s defense and material. Accordingly, we found that \\nGoudy was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. Goudy I, 604 \\nF.3d at 401. We found it unnecessary to rule on Goudy’s \\nStrickland claim. Id. at 401–02. \\n Goudy is now suing two of the investigators on the case, \\nRodney Cummings and Steve Napier, for depriving him of \\ndue process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See \\nU.S. Const. amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 5\\n\\nCummings wore two hats—that of an investigator and later \\nthat of the County Prosecutor—our focus is on his investiga‐\\ntory work. The same is true of Napier. (We refer to them col‐\\nlectively as the investigators, unless the context requires oth‐\\nerwise.) \\n In general, Goudy’s new case asserts the same due‐process \\ntheory that formed the basis of the decision to issue the writ \\nin Goudy I: that he was deprived of a fair trial in violation of \\nhis constitutional rights, as outlined in the Brady line of cases. \\nBut the conduct for which he seeks to hold the investigators \\nliable is different from the actions and omissions at issue in \\nGoudy I. The issue in Goudy I involved material exculpatory \\nevidence that was not turned over to the defense, but that was \\ngiven to the prosecutors trying the case. Police officers gener‐\\nally discharge their Brady obligations by turning over such ev‐\\nidence to the prosecutors, who in turn have a duty to disclose \\nthe evidence to the defense. Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 776 F.3d \\n500, 512 (7th Cir. 2015). (Notably, “the [Brady] rule encom‐\\npasses evidence known only to police investigators and not to \\nthe prosecutor.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280–81 (1999) \\n(cleaned up).) Cummings and Napier thus cannot be held lia‐\\nble in their capacity as investigators for the failure of the trial \\nprosecutors to turn over the specific police reports at issue in \\nGoudy I. \\n But the three allegations that form the basis of Goudy’s \\nsection 1983 action are new. We focus on two of the three iden‐\\ntified by the district court. The first is Goudy’s assertion that \\nCummings withheld a videotape of the lineup in which mul‐\\ntiple witnesses identified Harvell as a shooter and Nunn iden‐\\ntified a non‐suspect. The second is his allegation that the in‐\\nvestigators both withheld interview notes—newly discovered \\n\\f6 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\nin the course of this litigation—demonstrating that Harvell in‐\\nitially denied being at the scene at all, contradicting his trial \\ntestimony. Together, we refer to these arguments as the Brady \\nallegations. We do not reach Goudy’s third theory, which is \\nthat the investigators’ decision to subject him to an unduly \\nsuggestive “one‐man showup” also violated his rights and \\ntainted all future identifications on which the prosecution re‐\\nlied. \\n It is important to clarify that although the parties occasion‐\\nally refer to Goudy’s “Brady claims” or “identification proce‐\\ndure claim,” his allegations do not give rise to separate claims \\nunder section 1983. Goudy has presented a single claim: that \\nthe defendants are liable for causing him to receive an unfair \\ntrial in violation of his due process rights. Cf. Kyles, 514 U.S. \\nat 436 (materiality of suppressed evidence is considered col‐\\nlectively, not item by item). We therefore look at Goudy’s al‐\\nlegations as a whole, as did the district court. \\n The district court granted summary judgment on the en‐\\ntire case in favor of the defendants. It found the videotape al‐\\nlegation wanting because (among other reasons) there was \\n“no evidence” in the record to support a finding that Cum‐\\nmings intentionally concealed it from the prosecutors. It also \\nfound, with respect to the Harvell interview notes, that the \\ninvestigators had not suppressed them and that, in any event, \\nthe notes were not material for Brady purposes. Finally, the \\ncourt held as a matter of law that the improper identification \\nprocedure could not support either investigator’s liability, be‐\\ncause the prosecutors’ independent decision to introduce the \\nidentification evidence at trial constituted an intervening \\ncause that broke the chain of causation. \\n \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 7\\n\\n II \\n To show a Brady violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) \\nthat the evidence in question was favorable to his defense, ei‐\\nther because it had exculpatory or impeachment value; (2) \\nthat the state “suppressed” the favorable evidence either will‐\\nfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice ensued, which occurs \\nif the evidence was material. Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 \\n(2004); Carvajal v. Dominguez, 542 F.3d 561, 566–67 (7th Cir. \\n2008). The defendants do not dispute that the evidence in \\nquestion was favorable to Goudy. Accordingly, we move di‐\\nrectly to the question whether a reasonable jury could con‐\\nclude that any of the challenged evidence was suppressed. We \\nthen consider the materiality of all the evidence for which the \\nrecord supports a reasonable inference of suppression. \\n A \\n We turn first to the videotape of the lineup. To show sup‐\\npression, Goudy must demonstrate that Cummings blocked \\nthe video from disclosure “in time for the defendant to make \\nuse of it” and that it “was not otherwise available to the de‐\\nfendant through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Carva‐\\njal, 542 F.3d at 567. (Napier was not involved with this aspect \\nof the case.) \\n In order properly to assess Cummings’s actions regarding \\nthe videotape, we must review some background details. In \\nMay 1994, while Cummings was still employed as an Ander‐\\nson police officer, then‐County Prosecutor William Lawler \\nopted to drop charges that previously had been filed against \\nGoudy in order to continue the investigation. Cummings, \\nwho had graduated from law school a few years earlier, ap‐\\nparently disagreed with this decision; he campaigned for \\n\\f8 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\nLawler’s job through the summer and fall of 1994. On Septem‐\\nber 1 of that year, while both the investigation and Cum‐\\nmings’s ultimately successful campaign for County Prosecu‐\\ntor were underway, the police conducted a lineup in which \\nmultiple witnesses identified Kaidi Harvell as a shooter, and \\nvictim Damon Nunn identified a non‐suspect. (Recall, too, \\nthat during an earlier lineup in February 1994, Jill Barclay had \\nfingered Goudy.) Five days later, on September 6, 1994, Cum‐\\nmings checked the video of the September 1 lineup out of the \\nAnderson Police Department Property Room. \\n We do not know where Cummings kept the video, nor do \\nwe have a reliable accounting of its whereabouts at any point \\nbetween September 6, 1994, and November 22, 1995, when \\nCummings returned the video to the police evidence room. \\nWhat we do know is that the following events occurred dur‐\\ning those intervening 14 months. \\n In November 1994, Cummings defeated Lawler in the \\nCounty Prosecutor election. Cummings took office on January \\n1, 1995, and on April 7, 1995, he decided to re‐charge Goudy \\nwith the murder of McCloud and the attempted murder of \\nNunn. At a pre‐trial hearing on October 23, 1995, Goudy \\nmoved for the production of relevant videotapes (including \\nrecordings of lineups), among other evidence, as well as an \\nin‐camera inspection of police reports to determine which \\nones would be discoverable. The court ordered that the vide‐\\notapes should be made available, but it denied the defense’s \\nrequest for the police reports, finding them privileged under \\nIndiana’s work‐product doctrine. (Needless to say, Indiana’s \\nwork‐product privilege does not override the Brady obliga‐\\ntions of its police and prosecutors. Indeed, the failure to \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 9\\n\\nproduce the police reports was the basis for the issuance of \\nthe writ in Goudy I. 604 F.3d at 401.) \\n On November 14, 1995, someone—trial prosecutor Maras‐\\nRoberts testified that it may have been her—added an entry \\nto a handwritten to‐do list that included the phrase “videos of \\nlineup?? still N/A,” which she indicated would have meant \\nthat the September 1 lineup video was “not available.” On \\nNovember 22, the court heard defense counsel’s motion to re‐\\nconsider. It later reaffirmed its ruling denying in‐camera re‐\\nview of the police reports. \\n Also on November 22, a month after the court had ordered \\nthe production of all relevant videotape evidence, Cummings \\n(or someone using Cummings’s old badge number and signa‐\\nture) signed the videotape back into the police property room \\nat 3:36 p.m. Cummings has offered no explanation for why he \\nkept the video for so long nor for why he would have signed \\nthe video back into the police property room, given his \\nacknowledgement that it would have been improper for him \\nto do so once he was no longer an officer on the force. \\n Goudy argues that the best explanation for this series of \\nevents is that Cummings intentionally concealed the video \\nfrom trial prosecutors and prevented them from disclosing it \\nto the defense. The district court found that there was “no ev‐\\nidence to support this theory.” It pointed out that Cummings \\nsigned the video out under his own name—making clear that \\nanyone who was looking for it should seek him out—and that \\nthere was “no evidence in the record that the trial prosecutors \\nmade any attempt to obtain the videotape” during the rele‐\\nvant period. \\n\\f10 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\n The district court’s evaluation of the evidence, however, \\nfails to take the facts in the light most favorable to Goudy. \\nFrom that perspective, we see considerable evidence in the \\nrecord that would permit a trier of fact to conclude that Cum‐\\nmings’s concealment was intentional: the unexplained reten‐\\ntion of the video for 14 months; the return of the video on the \\nvery same date that the judge definitively blocked defense \\ncounsel from seeing the police reports describing it; and the \\ntrial prosecutor’s “still N/A” note. This raises a reasonable in‐\\nference that the trial prosecutors tried and failed to recover \\nthe video, regardless of the clues Cummings may have left be‐\\nhind. A jury could thus find that Cummings’s concealment \\nwas the cause of the prosecutors’ failure to find and disclose \\nthe video. \\n Cummings’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. \\nHe contends that because defense counsel could have ac‐\\nquired the videotape through “reasonable diligence,” the vid‐\\neotape was not “suppressed” for Brady purposes. But what \\nwas defense counsel to do? He evidently suspected that vide‐\\notapes of some lineups existed, because he mentioned them \\nwhile arguing his October 22, 1995, discovery motion. But he \\ndid not sit on this information: he asked that the videos be \\nproduced, and he received nothing. \\n Even if Goudy’s lawyer had located the probable cause af‐\\nfidavit filed to support Harvell’s earlier arrest for the murder \\nand attempted murder in September of 1994, he would have \\nbeen stymied. The affidavit indicates only that Harvell was \\nidentified in both photo and physical lineups by multiple wit‐\\nnesses. But the affidavit is not a stand‐in for the video. Cum‐\\nmings is incorrect to say that the affidavit “specifically refers \\nto a video‐recorded lineup” (emphasis added). Nor does the \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 11\\n\\naffidavit furnish the specific exculpatory and impeachment \\nmaterial—such as the identities of the witnesses that identi‐\\nfied Harvell in conflict with their trial testimony, or Nunn’s \\nidentification of a non‐suspect—found in the video. Cum‐\\nmings also suggests that defense counsel could have gone \\nback to the police property room himself or asked the court to \\ngrant him access, thereby allowing him to discover the video \\nreceipt with Cummings’s signature. But such a step would \\nmake sense only if counsel should have assumed that the state \\nwas dissembling when it did not produce any videotapes. \\n While we have rejected a Brady claim where counsel knew \\nof evidence and failed to subpoena a witness for it, United \\nStates v. Lockhart, 956 F.3d 1418, 1426 (7th Cir. 1992), Cum‐\\nmings points to no case in which we have required defense \\ncounsel to take extra steps to insure against police conceal‐\\nment or bad faith representations after seeking production of \\nthe relevant evidence. In the absence of an open‐file law or \\npractice (which counsel for Cummings and Napier confirmed \\nat oral argument did not exist in Madison County at the time), \\nGoudy’s defense counsel had every right to rely on the repre‐\\nsentations the trial prosecutors made that they had turned \\nover all relevant video evidence in accordance with the \\njudge’s October 22 ruling. \\n At trial, Goudy will need to show, by a preponderance of \\nthe evidence, that Cummings is the person responsible for the \\nstate’s suppression of the evidence. A jury might find that the \\nprosecution’s failure to disclose the video originated with \\nsomeone other than Cummings—perhaps trial prosecutors \\nMaras‐Roberts or Puckett. They knew of the video’s existence \\nand allowed the trial to proceed without its being disclosed to \\nthe defense. But a jury would also be entitled to infer that the \\n\\f12 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\n“still N/A” note indicated that Cummings had somehow pre‐\\nvented Maras‐Roberts from acquiring the video despite her \\nbest efforts. The facts are far from undisputed on this point. \\n Finally, Cummings argues that even if we found that the \\nvideotape was withheld, he is entitled to prosecutorial im‐\\nmunity. The district court did not base its ruling on prosecu‐\\ntorial immunity, and with good reason: Cummings’s actions \\n(removing the video and hanging onto it for 14 months) had \\nnothing to do with his prosecutorial responsibilities. He re‐\\nmoved and retained the video in his capacity as a police de‐\\ntective. Any entitlement to immunity that Cummings enjoys \\nfor actions taken in his prosecutorial capacity after April 7, \\n1995, is beside the point. \\n B \\n We next turn to the question whether Cummings and Na‐\\npier suppressed the interview notes indicating that Harvell \\nhad initially denied being at the scene of the crime and then \\nprovided a false alibi. All agree that the prosecution failed to \\nturn these notes over to Goudy’s defense counsel. But the dis‐\\ntrict court ruled that even if someone had suppressed this evi‐\\ndence, Cummings and Napier could not personally be held \\nliable for doing so, because of a deposition in which trial pros‐\\necutor Puckett says that he is “certain as can be” that he knew \\nbefore trial that Harvell had initially denied any involvement. \\n We do not agree that Puckett’s testimony takes Cummings \\nand Napier off the hook for suppressing the Harvell interview \\nnotes. Puckett’s testimony is equivocal about where or how \\nhe supposedly learned that Harvell had initially denied being \\npresent at the scene. Puckett indicated that he has “no present \\nrecollection of seeing those notes,” and that he merely \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 13\\n\\nassumed that he got the information about Harvell’s previous \\ndenials from the officers. (He explained that he did not recall \\nspeaking with Harvell personally before the time when he be‐\\nlieves he learned of Harvell’s early denials.) \\n Even if Cummings and Napier did communicate the infor‐\\nmation that Harvell had initially denied being present at the \\nscene, that is quite different from disclosing the notes them‐\\nselves. Contemporaneous documentary evidence of Harvell’s \\ndenials—which took place during an hour‐long interview—\\nwould prove much more useful as impeachment evidence \\nthan any secondhand oral recollection of a statement Harvell \\nhad made more than a year earlier. \\n This makes Goudy’s case unlike Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 776 \\nF.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2015), on which the district court relied. In \\nBeaman, police officers discharged their Brady obligations by \\nturning over to the prosecutors documentary evidence point‐\\ning to an alternative suspect. Id. at 512. Here, there is at most \\na single deposition indicating that a single prosecutor believes \\nhe learned—from someone, probably the defendants—that \\nHarvell had initially denied involvement. \\n Nothing in this record indicates that the actual interview \\nnotes were ever provided to the trial prosecutors. The record \\ndoes, however, contain enough to permit a jury to find that (a) \\nthe trial prosecutors did not have the notes, and (b) Napier \\nand Cummings knowingly brought about that omission. The \\ninvestigators conducted the interview together, and Napier \\ntook the notes by hand. Napier admitted that, contrary to his \\nusual practice, he did not convert this interview into a police \\nreport, which would have found its way to the trial prosecu‐\\ntors’ file. While Puckett has a vague recollection that he knew \\nof Harvell’s early denials, Maras‐Roberts disclaims having \\n\\f14 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\nhad any knowledge of the notes or their contents. And both \\nPuckett and Maras‐Roberts concede that under Brady, they \\nwould have had to tender the notes to the defense had they \\nbeen in possession of them. In the light most favorable to \\nGoudy, these facts would entitle a trier of fact to conclude that \\nCummings and Napier were responsible for the fact that the \\ntrial prosecutors never got the notes, and thus neither did the \\ndefense. \\n The district court based its conclusion that there was no \\nsuppression of information, as required by Brady, on its as‐\\nsumption that the prosecution was aware of the information \\nfound in the notes. It also suggested (but did not explicitly \\nrule) in the alternative that “it appears likely that Mr. Goudy’s \\ncriminal defense attorney could have discovered [the notes] \\nthrough reasonable diligence.” In support of this comment, \\nthe court pointed to evidence of a follow‐up conversation be‐\\ntween Cummings and Harvell in September 1994. At that \\ntime, Cummings referred to the earlier interview and said to \\nHarvell, “[w]e [the defendants and Harvell] had some conver‐\\nsation. You elected at that time not to talk to us; is that cor‐\\nrect?” Goudy’s defense counsel was aware of this conversa‐\\ntion. \\n The question for us is whether the possible existence of a \\nmore detailed statement from Harvell was so obvious from \\nCummings’s 1994 follow‐up interview that the investigators \\nshould be relieved of liability for not disclosing it. Again bear‐\\ning in mind the fact that we are reviewing a summary judg‐\\nment record, we think not. Even if it was not purposefully \\nmisleading, Cummings’s reference to the earlier interview \\nwas cryptic enough that a diligent defense representative \\nmight have determined there was nothing to see in the notes \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 15\\n\\nof that initial interview, or that notes of that previous inter‐\\nview may not exist. Goudy’s counsel cannot be criticized for \\nfailing to guess that Harvell’s initial statement was more sub‐\\nstantive than Cummings let on. Cummings’s follow‐up inter‐\\nview with Harvell thus does nothing to change our conclusion \\non this issue: a reasonable jury could decide that Napier’s \\nnotes from the initial interview were suppressed. \\n C \\n Having established that a trier of fact could find that Cum‐\\nmings suppressed the lineup videotape and both investiga‐\\ntors suppressed the interview notes, we now turn to the ques‐\\ntion of materiality. To show that the suppressed evidence was \\nmaterial to the outcome of his trial, Goudy must demonstrate \\nthat there is a “reasonable probability” that the result would \\nhave been different had the suppressed evidence been put be‐\\nfore the jury. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 422. As we emphasized in \\nGoudy I, the “reasonable probability standard for materiality \\n… is less rigorous than a preponderance of the evidence \\nstandard.” 604 F.3d at 399 (citing Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434). \\nGoudy must show only that “the cumulative effect of all the \\nsuppressed information is to undermine confidence in the \\nverdict.” Id. at 399. (No one has argued that this standard is \\ndifferent in a case under section 1983, such as this one, from \\nthe standard that applies in habeas corpus actions. We there‐\\nfore do not explore that possibility.) We assess this cumulative \\neffect “in the context of the entire record,” Beaman, 776 F.3d at \\n507 (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112 (1976)). \\n A rational trier of fact could find that Goudy has put \\nenough in the record to prevail. First, even if the videotape \\nwere the only piece of suppressed evidence, the jury could \\nfind it material against the backdrop of the lack of definitive \\n\\f16 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\nphysical evidence, the state’s reliance on eyewitness testi‐\\nmony, the inconsistencies among the testifying witnesses at \\ntrial, and the utility of the video as both evidence of an excul‐\\npatory theory and impeachment. \\n As we explained in Goudy I, the identifications made at \\ntrial were hardly ironclad. “The jury heard five witnesses say \\nthey saw Goudy firing a gun into McCloud’s car, but four of \\nthem did not agree on Goudy’s height, which side of the car \\nhe was on, whether he wore a hat and whether he wore a dark \\njacket and jeans or a full brown work uniform.” Goudy I, 604 \\nF.3d at 400. The video would have shown three of these wit‐\\nnesses identifying Harvell as one of the shooters at a time \\nwhen the defense was in possession of Romeo Lee’s confes‐\\nsion, which identified himself and Harvell as the two shoot‐\\ners. The video could therefore play a key role in advancing an \\nexculpatory theory of the case. (Evidence in the record that \\nGoudy and his lookalike brother Lee were routinely confused \\nfor each other would have bolstered this theory.) The video \\ncould also prove useful in impeaching both Harvell and \\nNunn, who appeared in the video identifying a non‐suspect. \\nWhile our cumulative materiality analysis in Goudy I included \\nother pieces of suppressed evidence not at issue here—such \\nas a report of a photo lineup in which a fourth witness identi‐\\nfied Harvell—those additional pieces of evidence would not \\nbe necessary for a jury to find materiality in this case. The vid‐\\neotape alone is enough. \\n But Goudy has more: the Harvell interview notes. The in‐\\nterview notes would have driven one more spike in a weak‐\\nened case. They would have depicted the state’s star witness, \\nHarvell, as both a suspect in serious jeopardy and a person \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 17\\n\\nwhose story (contrary to the prosecution’s closing argument) \\nhad changed significantly. \\n It is true that Napier, unlike Cummings, was at most re‐\\nsponsible for the suppression of the notes. The question of \\nmateriality may thus turn out to be different for Napier than \\nit is for Cummings. But given the obvious value of the notes \\nas potential impeachment evidence, it is for a jury to decide \\nwhether the material Napier was personally responsible for \\nsuppressing is sufficient to undermine confidence in the ver‐\\ndict. For this reason, it would be premature to rule in his favor \\nat this stage. Furthermore, as we explained above, Goudy \\nbrings a single claim based on one overarching constitutional \\nharm: that he was deprived of a fair trial in violation of his \\ndue process rights. He alleges that both Cummings and Na‐\\npier contributed to that constitutional injury, albeit in differ‐\\nent ways. Section 1983 liability must be understood against \\nthe background of the ordinary principles of tort law, where \\njoint and several liability is the norm. Whitlock v. Brueggemann, \\n682 F.3d 567, 582 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Watts v. Laurent, 774 \\nF.2d 168, 179 (7th Cir. 1985) (imposing joint and several liabil‐\\nity in a section 1983 case and noting that “[f]ederal common \\nlaw principles of tort and damages govern recovery under \\nsection 1983”). We see no reason to deviate from that norm \\nhere. \\n The Supreme Court has instructed us to look at the impact \\nof withheld evidence in the aggregate, rather than seriatim. \\nKyles, 514 U.S. at 440. For this reason, we consider it appropri‐\\nate that all defendants who can be shown to have “sup‐\\npressed” evidence in violation of Brady—that is, “all of the de‐\\nfendants [who] have committed the … illegal act,” Fillmore, \\n\\f18 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\n358 F.3d at 507—should be liable for the aggregate impact on \\nthe outcome of the trial Goudy ultimately received. \\n III \\n The investigators finally argue that even if Goudy’s alle‐\\ngations (taken in the light most favorable to him) satisfy all \\nthe elements of a Brady violation, qualified immunity protects \\nthem here. In order to fend off this defense, a plaintiff must \\nshow that “a constitutional right would have been violated on \\nthe facts alleged,” and that “the right at issue was clearly es‐\\ntablished at the relevant time.” Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. \\n765, 774 (2014). These inquiries—particularly the first one—\\nmust be undertaken at the proper level of specificity. Anderson \\nv. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 649 (1987). \\n Goudy’s allegations (if proven) describe a constitutional \\nviolation: the infringement of the due‐process right to obtain \\nexculpatory evidence, in this case through the investigators’ \\nconcealment of that evidence from the trial prosecutors. \\nMoreover, at the time of these events, this right was clearly \\nestablished. We see no need to repeat the underlying facts \\nwith respect to the video here. We add only that the fortuity \\nthat Cummings changed job titles over the period of his reten‐\\ntion of the video does not have any effect on our analysis. At \\nthe time he allegedly acted to suppress evidence, he was still \\na police officer, and he was not acting in a prosecutorial ca‐\\npacity when he checked the video back into the evidence \\nroom. It was already clearly established as early as 1981 that \\npolice could not withhold exculpatory information from pros‐\\necutors. See Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1988) \\n(affirming award of damages against officers who withheld \\nexculpatory information in 1981). Nothing had changed as of \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 19\\n\\n1994 and 1995, when these defendants were involved in \\nGoudy’s case. \\n The same conclusion applies to the Harvell interview \\nnotes. Cummings and Napier urge us to frame the qualified \\nimmunity issue regarding the notes as follows: “whether it \\nwas clearly established in 1994 that an initial denial of in‐\\nvolvement by a suspect, when that suspect later admits in‐\\nvolvement in the crime, is material impeachment evidence \\nsuch that a police officer can be held monetarily liable for not \\nproviding it.” \\n Even on this narrow view of the issue, materiality is easy \\nto see: flip‐flops in accounts about the central events in a case \\nprovide rich impeachment evidence, and potentially evidence \\non the merits. In addition, there are problems with the state’s \\nversion. It cannot be the case that the qualified‐immunity in‐\\nquiry is so specific that materiality depends on the outcome \\nof a trial. If we were to adopt such an approach, we would \\nshield officers from liability for withholding impeachment ev‐\\nidence whenever materiality was a close call (for example, if \\nthe police officer felt the overall case was strong enough). \\nSuch a shield would be incompatible with the rule announced \\nand elaborated in the Brady line of cases. \\n Even if we were to formulate the inquiry as the investiga‐\\ntors suggest, we would need to add something along the lines \\nof: “when that suspect is the state’s star witness, the other \\nidentifying testimony contains serious internal inconsisten‐\\ncies, and there is a dearth of physical evidence tying the ac‐\\ncused to the crime.” The state’s case here was far from a slam \\ndunk. A finding of liability does not require a case such as Boss \\nv. Pierce, 263 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2001), in which the subject of \\nthe suppressed impeachment evidence was the only witness \\n\\f20 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\ntying the accused to the crime. Id at 736. It should have been \\nobvious to Napier and Cummings that evidence impeaching \\nthe story told by the state’s main cooperating witness, in a \\ncase with no physical evidence and inconsistent witness iden‐\\ntifications, needed to be disclosed. (Notably, trial prosecutors \\nPuckett and Maras‐Roberts acknowledged that they would \\nhave had to disclose the notes had they possessed them.) \\n Of course, it is still up to the jury to decide whether Napier \\nand Cummings suppressed these pieces of evidence. But if \\nthey did, they cannot use qualified immunity to avoid liabil‐\\nity. \\n IV \\n Goudy has presented enough to go to trial on his allega‐\\ntions that Cummings and Napier violated his due process \\nright to a fair trial. We need not and do not address his alle‐\\ngation that the allegedly improper one‐man “showup” proce‐\\ndure independently constituted a basis for liability. On re‐\\nmand, the district court is free to consider this issue afresh; \\nevidence of the showup procedure may prove to be relevant \\nat trial as Goudy seeks to hold the defendants liable for his \\nconstitutional injury. \\n We REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judg‐\\nment and REMAND the case for further proceedings con‐\\nsistent with this opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4393007/\", \"author_raw\": \"Diane Pamela Wood\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4615754/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Walter Goudy v. Rodney Cummings\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-05-01\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐3665 \nWALTER GOUDY, \n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \n v. \n\nRODNEY J. CUMMINGS, et al., \n Defendants‐Appellees. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. \n No. 1:12‐cv‐00161‐SEB‐TAB — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 30, 2018 — DECIDED MAY 1, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and SYKES and BARRETT, Circuit \nJudges. \n WOOD, Chief Judge. In 1963 the Supreme Court announced \nthat the prosecution team has a duty under the Due Process \nClause of the Fourteenth Amendment to turn over material, \nexculpatory evidence to criminal defendants. Brady v. Mary‐\nland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 \n(1995); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). Walter \nGoudy contends in this case that the state and local officials \n\f2 No. 17‐3665 \n\nwho pursued him for a 1993 murder failed to comply with \ntheir Brady obligations, and that he is entitled to damages un‐\nder 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the years he spent in prison. That re‐\nquest was based on his success in an earlier round of litiga‐\ntion, which culminated with this court’s ruling that Goudy \nwas entitled to a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. \nGoudy v. Basinger, 604 F.3d 394 (7th Cir. 2010) (Goudy I). The \nstate elected not to re‐try him; he was released; and 17 months \nlater he filed this suit. \n The district court winnowed the section 1983 action down \nto three allegations that the investigators in the case violated \nhis due process rights, by (1) subjecting him to an improper \nshow‐up procedure, (2) withholding a videotape showing a \nline‐up in which several witnesses identified a different per‐\nson as the shooter, and (3) withholding interview notes show‐\ning that the other suspect initially had denied any involve‐\nment in the murder, but later switched his story. The court \ngranted summary judgment for the defendants on all aspects \nof the case. We conclude that this was premature: Goudy pre‐\nsented enough evidence on the second and third arguments \nto move forward. We therefore reverse and remand for fur‐\nther proceedings. \n I \n We can be brief about the underlying incident, which was \ndescribed by both the Indiana Supreme Court, in Goudy v. \nState, 689 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 1997), and by this court in our 2010 \nopinion. On October 3, 1993, two men fired shots into a car \noccupied by several people, including Marvin McCloud and \nDamon Nunn. The shooters killed McCloud, who had been \ndriving, and seriously injured Nunn. A number of people \n\fNo. 17‐3665 3\n\nwitnessed these events, including Jill Barclay, Jackie Barclay \n(Jill’s sister), LaTonya Young, and Kaidi Harvell. \n Police from Anderson, Indiana, where the shooting had \ntaken place, picked up Goudy at the Oasis Club on February \n5, 1994, after they received an anonymous tip that one of the \nshooters was there. One of the defendants, Detective Rodney \nCummings, contacted Jill Barclay and asked her to come to \nthe police station to make an identification. When she arrived \nat the station, Detective Steve Napier, Cummings’s partner \nand the other defendant here, told her that they were going to \nshow her a suspect in the shooting. Cummings then brought \nJill into a room with a one‐way mirror and showed her \nGoudy; she identified him as one of the shooters. She then \ntalked to Jackie and told him that the shooter she saw looked \nlike one of their acquaintances. \n Our focus, however, is on evidence that the jury never \nheard, because the state never disclosed it to Goudy. First, the \nstate had three police reports that contained pertinent infor‐\nmation. We discussed these reports in our 2010 opinion: \n The first report describes a phone call to police from \n Jill Barclay in which she said she saw one of the gun‐\n men at an Indianapolis mall. She stated that she \n thought he kept looking at her “over his shoulder” and \n that she later saw him outside “attempting to look at \n her license plate.” She later identified this man as \n [Kaidi] Harvell and said she was positive he was one \n of the gunmen. \n604 F.3d at 397. The first police report also included infor‐\nmation about a photo spread that Jill Barclay, Jackie Barclay \n(Jill’s sister), and LaTonya Young viewed. Jackie and LaTonya \n\f4 No. 17‐3665 \n\nsaw the shooting from across the street. All three women \n“’positively and without hesitation’ identified Harvell as the \ngunman on the driver’s side of McCloud’s car, and said he \nwore brown clothing.” Id. \n In addition to the photo lineup, there was an in‐person \nlineup viewed by Nunn, Jill and Jackie Barclay, as well as an‐\nother witness, Donzetta Clay (who did not testify at trial). \nOnce again, the results favored Goudy: “Clay and the Barclay \nsisters identified Harvell; Nunn identified a non‐suspect as \nthe shooter.” Id. Moreover, Goudy’s own counsel failed to in‐\ntroduce a video confession by Goudy’s lookalike half‐brother, \nRomeo Lee. In that video, Lee identified himself and Harvell \nas the two shooters. \n As we noted, after his conviction for murdering McCloud \nand attempting to murder Nunn, Goudy sought post‐\nconviction relief. He argued throughout these proceedings \nthat the state’s failure to comply with Brady had deprived him \nof a fair trial and that he had received ineffective assistance of \ncounsel in violation of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 \n(1984). \n Goudy was unsuccessful in the state courts, but in Goudy I \nwe found that the suppressed evidence was both favorable to \nGoudy’s defense and material. Accordingly, we found that \nGoudy was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. Goudy I, 604 \nF.3d at 401. We found it unnecessary to rule on Goudy’s \nStrickland claim. Id. at 401–02. \n Goudy is now suing two of the investigators on the case, \nRodney Cummings and Steve Napier, for depriving him of \ndue process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See \nU.S. Const. amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although \n\fNo. 17‐3665 5\n\nCummings wore two hats—that of an investigator and later \nthat of the County Prosecutor—our focus is on his investiga‐\ntory work. The same is true of Napier. (We refer to them col‐\nlectively as the investigators, unless the context requires oth‐\nerwise.) \n In general, Goudy’s new case asserts the same due‐process \ntheory that formed the basis of the decision to issue the writ \nin Goudy I: that he was deprived of a fair trial in violation of \nhis constitutional rights, as outlined in the Brady line of cases. \nBut the conduct for which he seeks to hold the investigators \nliable is different from the actions and omissions at issue in \nGoudy I. The issue in Goudy I involved material exculpatory \nevidence that was not turned over to the defense, but that was \ngiven to the prosecutors trying the case. Police officers gener‐\nally discharge their Brady obligations by turning over such ev‐\nidence to the prosecutors, who in turn have a duty to disclose \nthe evidence to the defense. Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 776 F.3d \n500, 512 (7th Cir. 2015). (Notably, “the [Brady] rule encom‐\npasses evidence known only to police investigators and not to \nthe prosecutor.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280–81 (1999) \n(cleaned up).) Cummings and Napier thus cannot be held lia‐\nble in their capacity as investigators for the failure of the trial \nprosecutors to turn over the specific police reports at issue in \nGoudy I. \n But the three allegations that form the basis of Goudy’s \nsection 1983 action are new. We focus on two of the three iden‐\ntified by the district court. The first is Goudy’s assertion that \nCummings withheld a videotape of the lineup in which mul‐\ntiple witnesses identified Harvell as a shooter and Nunn iden‐\ntified a non‐suspect. The second is his allegation that the in‐\nvestigators both withheld interview notes—newly discovered \n\f6 No. 17‐3665 \n\nin the course of this litigation—demonstrating that Harvell in‐\nitially denied being at the scene at all, contradicting his trial \ntestimony. Together, we refer to these arguments as the Brady \nallegations. We do not reach Goudy’s third theory, which is \nthat the investigators’ decision to subject him to an unduly \nsuggestive “one‐man showup” also violated his rights and \ntainted all future identifications on which the prosecution re‐\nlied. \n It is important to clarify that although the parties occasion‐\nally refer to Goudy’s “Brady claims” or “identification proce‐\ndure claim,” his allegations do not give rise to separate claims \nunder section 1983. Goudy has presented a single claim: that \nthe defendants are liable for causing him to receive an unfair \ntrial in violation of his due process rights. Cf. Kyles, 514 U.S. \nat 436 (materiality of suppressed evidence is considered col‐\nlectively, not item by item). We therefore look at Goudy’s al‐\nlegations as a whole, as did the district court. \n The district court granted summary judgment on the en‐\ntire case in favor of the defendants. It found the videotape al‐\nlegation wanting because (among other reasons) there was \n“no evidence” in the record to support a finding that Cum‐\nmings intentionally concealed it from the prosecutors. It also \nfound, with respect to the Harvell interview notes, that the \ninvestigators had not suppressed them and that, in any event, \nthe notes were not material for Brady purposes. Finally, the \ncourt held as a matter of law that the improper identification \nprocedure could not support either investigator’s liability, be‐\ncause the prosecutors’ independent decision to introduce the \nidentification evidence at trial constituted an intervening \ncause that broke the chain of causation. \n \n\fNo. 17‐3665 7\n\n II \n To show a Brady violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) \nthat the evidence in question was favorable to his defense, ei‐\nther because it had exculpatory or impeachment value; (2) \nthat the state “suppressed” the favorable evidence either will‐\nfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice ensued, which occurs \nif the evidence was material. Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 \n(2004); Carvajal v. Dominguez, 542 F.3d 561, 566–67 (7th Cir. \n2008). The defendants do not dispute that the evidence in \nquestion was favorable to Goudy. Accordingly, we move di‐\nrectly to the question whether a reasonable jury could con‐\nclude that any of the challenged evidence was suppressed. We \nthen consider the materiality of all the evidence for which the \nrecord supports a reasonable inference of suppression. \n A \n We turn first to the videotape of the lineup. To show sup‐\npression, Goudy must demonstrate that Cummings blocked \nthe video from disclosure “in time for the defendant to make \nuse of it” and that it “was not otherwise available to the de‐\nfendant through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Carva‐\njal, 542 F.3d at 567. (Napier was not involved with this aspect \nof the case.) \n In order properly to assess Cummings’s actions regarding \nthe videotape, we must review some background details. In \nMay 1994, while Cummings was still employed as an Ander‐\nson police officer, then‐County Prosecutor William Lawler \nopted to drop charges that previously had been filed against \nGoudy in order to continue the investigation. Cummings, \nwho had graduated from law school a few years earlier, ap‐\nparently disagreed with this decision; he campaigned for \n\f8 No. 17‐3665 \n\nLawler’s job through the summer and fall of 1994. On Septem‐\nber 1 of that year, while both the investigation and Cum‐\nmings’s ultimately successful campaign for County Prosecu‐\ntor were underway, the police conducted a lineup in which \nmultiple witnesses identified Kaidi Harvell as a shooter, and \nvictim Damon Nunn identified a non‐suspect. (Recall, too, \nthat during an earlier lineup in February 1994, Jill Barclay had \nfingered Goudy.) Five days later, on September 6, 1994, Cum‐\nmings checked the video of the September 1 lineup out of the \nAnderson Police Department Property Room. \n We do not know where Cummings kept the video, nor do \nwe have a reliable accounting of its whereabouts at any point \nbetween September 6, 1994, and November 22, 1995, when \nCummings returned the video to the police evidence room. \nWhat we do know is that the following events occurred dur‐\ning those intervening 14 months. \n In November 1994, Cummings defeated Lawler in the \nCounty Prosecutor election. Cummings took office on January \n1, 1995, and on April 7, 1995, he decided to re‐charge Goudy \nwith the murder of McCloud and the attempted murder of \nNunn. At a pre‐trial hearing on October 23, 1995, Goudy \nmoved for the production of relevant videotapes (including \nrecordings of lineups), among other evidence, as well as an \nin‐camera inspection of police reports to determine which \nones would be discoverable. The court ordered that the vide‐\notapes should be made available, but it denied the defense’s \nrequest for the police reports, finding them privileged under \nIndiana’s work‐product doctrine. (Needless to say, Indiana’s \nwork‐product privilege does not override the Brady obliga‐\ntions of its police and prosecutors. Indeed, the failure to \n\fNo. 17‐3665 9\n\nproduce the police reports was the basis for the issuance of \nthe writ in Goudy I. 604 F.3d at 401.) \n On November 14, 1995, someone—trial prosecutor Maras‐\nRoberts testified that it may have been her—added an entry \nto a handwritten to‐do list that included the phrase “videos of \nlineup?? still N/A,” which she indicated would have meant \nthat the September 1 lineup video was “not available.” On \nNovember 22, the court heard defense counsel’s motion to re‐\nconsider. It later reaffirmed its ruling denying in‐camera re‐\nview of the police reports. \n Also on November 22, a month after the court had ordered \nthe production of all relevant videotape evidence, Cummings \n(or someone using Cummings’s old badge number and signa‐\nture) signed the videotape back into the police property room \nat 3:36 p.m. Cummings has offered no explanation for why he \nkept the video for so long nor for why he would have signed \nthe video back into the police property room, given his \nacknowledgement that it would have been improper for him \nto do so once he was no longer an officer on the force. \n Goudy argues that the best explanation for this series of \nevents is that Cummings intentionally concealed the video \nfrom trial prosecutors and prevented them from disclosing it \nto the defense. The district court found that there was “no ev‐\nidence to support this theory.” It pointed out that Cummings \nsigned the video out under his own name—making clear that \nanyone who was looking for it should seek him out—and that \nthere was “no evidence in the record that the trial prosecutors \nmade any attempt to obtain the videotape” during the rele‐\nvant period. \n\f10 No. 17‐3665 \n\n The district court’s evaluation of the evidence, however, \nfails to take the facts in the light most favorable to Goudy. \nFrom that perspective, we see considerable evidence in the \nrecord that would permit a trier of fact to conclude that Cum‐\nmings’s concealment was intentional: the unexplained reten‐\ntion of the video for 14 months; the return of the video on the \nvery same date that the judge definitively blocked defense \ncounsel from seeing the police reports describing it; and the \ntrial prosecutor’s “still N/A” note. This raises a reasonable in‐\nference that the trial prosecutors tried and failed to recover \nthe video, regardless of the clues Cummings may have left be‐\nhind. A jury could thus find that Cummings’s concealment \nwas the cause of the prosecutors’ failure to find and disclose \nthe video. \n Cummings’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. \nHe contends that because defense counsel could have ac‐\nquired the videotape through “reasonable diligence,” the vid‐\neotape was not “suppressed” for Brady purposes. But what \nwas defense counsel to do? He evidently suspected that vide‐\notapes of some lineups existed, because he mentioned them \nwhile arguing his October 22, 1995, discovery motion. But he \ndid not sit on this information: he asked that the videos be \nproduced, and he received nothing. \n Even if Goudy’s lawyer had located the probable cause af‐\nfidavit filed to support Harvell’s earlier arrest for the murder \nand attempted murder in September of 1994, he would have \nbeen stymied. The affidavit indicates only that Harvell was \nidentified in both photo and physical lineups by multiple wit‐\nnesses. But the affidavit is not a stand‐in for the video. Cum‐\nmings is incorrect to say that the affidavit “specifically refers \nto a video‐recorded lineup” (emphasis added). Nor does the \n\fNo. 17‐3665 11\n\naffidavit furnish the specific exculpatory and impeachment \nmaterial—such as the identities of the witnesses that identi‐\nfied Harvell in conflict with their trial testimony, or Nunn’s \nidentification of a non‐suspect—found in the video. Cum‐\nmings also suggests that defense counsel could have gone \nback to the police property room himself or asked the court to \ngrant him access, thereby allowing him to discover the video \nreceipt with Cummings’s signature. But such a step would \nmake sense only if counsel should have assumed that the state \nwas dissembling when it did not produce any videotapes. \n While we have rejected a Brady claim where counsel knew \nof evidence and failed to subpoena a witness for it, United \nStates v. Lockhart, 956 F.3d 1418, 1426 (7th Cir. 1992), Cum‐\nmings points to no case in which we have required defense \ncounsel to take extra steps to insure against police conceal‐\nment or bad faith representations after seeking production of \nthe relevant evidence. In the absence of an open‐file law or \npractice (which counsel for Cummings and Napier confirmed \nat oral argument did not exist in Madison County at the time), \nGoudy’s defense counsel had every right to rely on the repre‐\nsentations the trial prosecutors made that they had turned \nover all relevant video evidence in accordance with the \njudge’s October 22 ruling. \n At trial, Goudy will need to show, by a preponderance of \nthe evidence, that Cummings is the person responsible for the \nstate’s suppression of the evidence. A jury might find that the \nprosecution’s failure to disclose the video originated with \nsomeone other than Cummings—perhaps trial prosecutors \nMaras‐Roberts or Puckett. They knew of the video’s existence \nand allowed the trial to proceed without its being disclosed to \nthe defense. But a jury would also be entitled to infer that the \n\f12 No. 17‐3665 \n\n“still N/A” note indicated that Cummings had somehow pre‐\nvented Maras‐Roberts from acquiring the video despite her \nbest efforts. The facts are far from undisputed on this point. \n Finally, Cummings argues that even if we found that the \nvideotape was withheld, he is entitled to prosecutorial im‐\nmunity. The district court did not base its ruling on prosecu‐\ntorial immunity, and with good reason: Cummings’s actions \n(removing the video and hanging onto it for 14 months) had \nnothing to do with his prosecutorial responsibilities. He re‐\nmoved and retained the video in his capacity as a police de‐\ntective. Any entitlement to immunity that Cummings enjoys \nfor actions taken in his prosecutorial capacity after April 7, \n1995, is beside the point. \n B \n We next turn to the question whether Cummings and Na‐\npier suppressed the interview notes indicating that Harvell \nhad initially denied being at the scene of the crime and then \nprovided a false alibi. All agree that the prosecution failed to \nturn these notes over to Goudy’s defense counsel. But the dis‐\ntrict court ruled that even if someone had suppressed this evi‐\ndence, Cummings and Napier could not personally be held \nliable for doing so, because of a deposition in which trial pros‐\necutor Puckett says that he is “certain as can be” that he knew \nbefore trial that Harvell had initially denied any involvement. \n We do not agree that Puckett’s testimony takes Cummings \nand Napier off the hook for suppressing the Harvell interview \nnotes. Puckett’s testimony is equivocal about where or how \nhe supposedly learned that Harvell had initially denied being \npresent at the scene. Puckett indicated that he has “no present \nrecollection of seeing those notes,” and that he merely \n\fNo. 17‐3665 13\n\nassumed that he got the information about Harvell’s previous \ndenials from the officers. (He explained that he did not recall \nspeaking with Harvell personally before the time when he be‐\nlieves he learned of Harvell’s early denials.) \n Even if Cummings and Napier did communicate the infor‐\nmation that Harvell had initially denied being present at the \nscene, that is quite different from disclosing the notes them‐\nselves. Contemporaneous documentary evidence of Harvell’s \ndenials—which took place during an hour‐long interview—\nwould prove much more useful as impeachment evidence \nthan any secondhand oral recollection of a statement Harvell \nhad made more than a year earlier. \n This makes Goudy’s case unlike Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 776 \nF.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2015), on which the district court relied. In \nBeaman, police officers discharged their Brady obligations by \nturning over to the prosecutors documentary evidence point‐\ning to an alternative suspect. Id. at 512. Here, there is at most \na single deposition indicating that a single prosecutor believes \nhe learned—from someone, probably the defendants—that \nHarvell had initially denied involvement. \n Nothing in this record indicates that the actual interview \nnotes were ever provided to the trial prosecutors. The record \ndoes, however, contain enough to permit a jury to find that (a) \nthe trial prosecutors did not have the notes, and (b) Napier \nand Cummings knowingly brought about that omission. The \ninvestigators conducted the interview together, and Napier \ntook the notes by hand. Napier admitted that, contrary to his \nusual practice, he did not convert this interview into a police \nreport, which would have found its way to the trial prosecu‐\ntors’ file. While Puckett has a vague recollection that he knew \nof Harvell’s early denials, Maras‐Roberts disclaims having \n\f14 No. 17‐3665 \n\nhad any knowledge of the notes or their contents. And both \nPuckett and Maras‐Roberts concede that under Brady, they \nwould have had to tender the notes to the defense had they \nbeen in possession of them. In the light most favorable to \nGoudy, these facts would entitle a trier of fact to conclude that \nCummings and Napier were responsible for the fact that the \ntrial prosecutors never got the notes, and thus neither did the \ndefense. \n The district court based its conclusion that there was no \nsuppression of information, as required by Brady, on its as‐\nsumption that the prosecution was aware of the information \nfound in the notes. It also suggested (but did not explicitly \nrule) in the alternative that “it appears likely that Mr. Goudy’s \ncriminal defense attorney could have discovered [the notes] \nthrough reasonable diligence.” In support of this comment, \nthe court pointed to evidence of a follow‐up conversation be‐\ntween Cummings and Harvell in September 1994. At that \ntime, Cummings referred to the earlier interview and said to \nHarvell, “[w]e [the defendants and Harvell] had some conver‐\nsation. You elected at that time not to talk to us; is that cor‐\nrect?” Goudy’s defense counsel was aware of this conversa‐\ntion. \n The question for us is whether the possible existence of a \nmore detailed statement from Harvell was so obvious from \nCummings’s 1994 follow‐up interview that the investigators \nshould be relieved of liability for not disclosing it. Again bear‐\ning in mind the fact that we are reviewing a summary judg‐\nment record, we think not. Even if it was not purposefully \nmisleading, Cummings’s reference to the earlier interview \nwas cryptic enough that a diligent defense representative \nmight have determined there was nothing to see in the notes \n\fNo. 17‐3665 15\n\nof that initial interview, or that notes of that previous inter‐\nview may not exist. Goudy’s counsel cannot be criticized for \nfailing to guess that Harvell’s initial statement was more sub‐\nstantive than Cummings let on. Cummings’s follow‐up inter‐\nview with Harvell thus does nothing to change our conclusion \non this issue: a reasonable jury could decide that Napier’s \nnotes from the initial interview were suppressed. \n C \n Having established that a trier of fact could find that Cum‐\nmings suppressed the lineup videotape and both investiga‐\ntors suppressed the interview notes, we now turn to the ques‐\ntion of materiality. To show that the suppressed evidence was \nmaterial to the outcome of his trial, Goudy must demonstrate \nthat there is a “reasonable probability” that the result would \nhave been different had the suppressed evidence been put be‐\nfore the jury. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 422. As we emphasized in \nGoudy I, the “reasonable probability standard for materiality \n… is less rigorous than a preponderance of the evidence \nstandard.” 604 F.3d at 399 (citing Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434). \nGoudy must show only that “the cumulative effect of all the \nsuppressed information is to undermine confidence in the \nverdict.” Id. at 399. (No one has argued that this standard is \ndifferent in a case under section 1983, such as this one, from \nthe standard that applies in habeas corpus actions. We there‐\nfore do not explore that possibility.) We assess this cumulative \neffect “in the context of the entire record,” Beaman, 776 F.3d at \n507 (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112 (1976)). \n A rational trier of fact could find that Goudy has put \nenough in the record to prevail. First, even if the videotape \nwere the only piece of suppressed evidence, the jury could \nfind it material against the backdrop of the lack of definitive \n\f16 No. 17‐3665 \n\nphysical evidence, the state’s reliance on eyewitness testi‐\nmony, the inconsistencies among the testifying witnesses at \ntrial, and the utility of the video as both evidence of an excul‐\npatory theory and impeachment. \n As we explained in Goudy I, the identifications made at \ntrial were hardly ironclad. “The jury heard five witnesses say \nthey saw Goudy firing a gun into McCloud’s car, but four of \nthem did not agree on Goudy’s height, which side of the car \nhe was on, whether he wore a hat and whether he wore a dark \njacket and jeans or a full brown work uniform.” Goudy I, 604 \nF.3d at 400. The video would have shown three of these wit‐\nnesses identifying Harvell as one of the shooters at a time \nwhen the defense was in possession of Romeo Lee’s confes‐\nsion, which identified himself and Harvell as the two shoot‐\ners. The video could therefore play a key role in advancing an \nexculpatory theory of the case. (Evidence in the record that \nGoudy and his lookalike brother Lee were routinely confused \nfor each other would have bolstered this theory.) The video \ncould also prove useful in impeaching both Harvell and \nNunn, who appeared in the video identifying a non‐suspect. \nWhile our cumulative materiality analysis in Goudy I included \nother pieces of suppressed evidence not at issue here—such \nas a report of a photo lineup in which a fourth witness identi‐\nfied Harvell—those additional pieces of evidence would not \nbe necessary for a jury to find materiality in this case. The vid‐\neotape alone is enough. \n But Goudy has more: the Harvell interview notes. The in‐\nterview notes would have driven one more spike in a weak‐\nened case. They would have depicted the state’s star witness, \nHarvell, as both a suspect in serious jeopardy and a person \n\fNo. 17‐3665 17\n\nwhose story (contrary to the prosecution’s closing argument) \nhad changed significantly. \n It is true that Napier, unlike Cummings, was at most re‐\nsponsible for the suppression of the notes. The question of \nmateriality may thus turn out to be different for Napier than \nit is for Cummings. But given the obvious value of the notes \nas potential impeachment evidence, it is for a jury to decide \nwhether the material Napier was personally responsible for \nsuppressing is sufficient to undermine confidence in the ver‐\ndict. For this reason, it would be premature to rule in his favor \nat this stage. Furthermore, as we explained above, Goudy \nbrings a single claim based on one overarching constitutional \nharm: that he was deprived of a fair trial in violation of his \ndue process rights. He alleges that both Cummings and Na‐\npier contributed to that constitutional injury, albeit in differ‐\nent ways. Section 1983 liability must be understood against \nthe background of the ordinary principles of tort law, where \njoint and several liability is the norm. Whitlock v. Brueggemann, \n682 F.3d 567, 582 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Watts v. Laurent, 774 \nF.2d 168, 179 (7th Cir. 1985) (imposing joint and several liabil‐\nity in a section 1983 case and noting that “[f]ederal common \nlaw principles of tort and damages govern recovery under \nsection 1983”). We see no reason to deviate from that norm \nhere. \n The Supreme Court has instructed us to look at the impact \nof withheld evidence in the aggregate, rather than seriatim. \nKyles, 514 U.S. at 440. For this reason, we consider it appropri‐\nate that all defendants who can be shown to have “sup‐\npressed” evidence in violation of Brady—that is, “all of the de‐\nfendants [who] have committed the … illegal act,” Fillmore, \n\f18 No. 17‐3665 \n\n358 F.3d at 507—should be liable for the aggregate impact on \nthe outcome of the trial Goudy ultimately received. \n III \n The investigators finally argue that even if Goudy’s alle‐\ngations (taken in the light most favorable to him) satisfy all \nthe elements of a Brady violation, qualified immunity protects \nthem here. In order to fend off this defense, a plaintiff must \nshow that “a constitutional right would have been violated on \nthe facts alleged,” and that “the right at issue was clearly es‐\ntablished at the relevant time.” Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. \n765, 774 (2014). These inquiries—particularly the first one—\nmust be undertaken at the proper level of specificity. Anderson \nv. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 649 (1987). \n Goudy’s allegations (if proven) describe a constitutional \nviolation: the infringement of the due‐process right to obtain \nexculpatory evidence, in this case through the investigators’ \nconcealment of that evidence from the trial prosecutors. \nMoreover, at the time of these events, this right was clearly \nestablished. We see no need to repeat the underlying facts \nwith respect to the video here. We add only that the fortuity \nthat Cummings changed job titles over the period of his reten‐\ntion of the video does not have any effect on our analysis. At \nthe time he allegedly acted to suppress evidence, he was still \na police officer, and he was not acting in a prosecutorial ca‐\npacity when he checked the video back into the evidence \nroom. It was already clearly established as early as 1981 that \npolice could not withhold exculpatory information from pros‐\necutors. See Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1988) \n(affirming award of damages against officers who withheld \nexculpatory information in 1981). Nothing had changed as of \n\fNo. 17‐3665 19\n\n1994 and 1995, when these defendants were involved in \nGoudy’s case. \n The same conclusion applies to the Harvell interview \nnotes. Cummings and Napier urge us to frame the qualified \nimmunity issue regarding the notes as follows: “whether it \nwas clearly established in 1994 that an initial denial of in‐\nvolvement by a suspect, when that suspect later admits in‐\nvolvement in the crime, is material impeachment evidence \nsuch that a police officer can be held monetarily liable for not \nproviding it.” \n Even on this narrow view of the issue, materiality is easy \nto see: flip‐flops in accounts about the central events in a case \nprovide rich impeachment evidence, and potentially evidence \non the merits. In addition, there are problems with the state’s \nversion. It cannot be the case that the qualified‐immunity in‐\nquiry is so specific that materiality depends on the outcome \nof a trial. If we were to adopt such an approach, we would \nshield officers from liability for withholding impeachment ev‐\nidence whenever materiality was a close call (for example, if \nthe police officer felt the overall case was strong enough). \nSuch a shield would be incompatible with the rule announced \nand elaborated in the Brady line of cases. \n Even if we were to formulate the inquiry as the investiga‐\ntors suggest, we would need to add something along the lines \nof: “when that suspect is the state’s star witness, the other \nidentifying testimony contains serious internal inconsisten‐\ncies, and there is a dearth of physical evidence tying the ac‐\ncused to the crime.” The state’s case here was far from a slam \ndunk. A finding of liability does not require a case such as Boss \nv. Pierce, 263 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2001), in which the subject of \nthe suppressed impeachment evidence was the only witness \n\f20 No. 17‐3665 \n\ntying the accused to the crime. Id at 736. It should have been \nobvious to Napier and Cummings that evidence impeaching \nthe story told by the state’s main cooperating witness, in a \ncase with no physical evidence and inconsistent witness iden‐\ntifications, needed to be disclosed. (Notably, trial prosecutors \nPuckett and Maras‐Roberts acknowledged that they would \nhave had to disclose the notes had they possessed them.) \n Of course, it is still up to the jury to decide whether Napier \nand Cummings suppressed these pieces of evidence. But if \nthey did, they cannot use qualified immunity to avoid liabil‐\nity. \n IV \n Goudy has presented enough to go to trial on his allega‐\ntions that Cummings and Napier violated his due process \nright to a fair trial. We need not and do not address his alle‐\ngation that the allegedly improper one‐man “showup” proce‐\ndure independently constituted a basis for liability. On re‐\nmand, the district court is free to consider this issue afresh; \nevidence of the showup procedure may prove to be relevant \nat trial as Goudy seeks to hold the defendants liable for his \nconstitutional injury. \n We REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judg‐\nment and REMAND the case for further proceedings con‐\nsistent with this opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Walter Goudy v. Rodney Cummings\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-05-01\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐3665 \\nWALTER GOUDY, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \\n v. \\n\\nRODNEY J. CUMMINGS, et al., \\n Defendants‐Appellees. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. \\n No. 1:12‐cv‐00161‐SEB‐TAB — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 30, 2018 — DECIDED MAY 1, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and SYKES and BARRETT, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n WOOD, Chief Judge. In 1963 the Supreme Court announced \\nthat the prosecution team has a duty under the Due Process \\nClause of the Fourteenth Amendment to turn over material, \\nexculpatory evidence to criminal defendants. Brady v. Mary‐\\nland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 \\n(1995); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). Walter \\nGoudy contends in this case that the state and local officials \\n\\f2 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\nwho pursued him for a 1993 murder failed to comply with \\ntheir Brady obligations, and that he is entitled to damages un‐\\nder 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the years he spent in prison. That re‐\\nquest was based on his success in an earlier round of litiga‐\\ntion, which culminated with this court’s ruling that Goudy \\nwas entitled to a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. \\nGoudy v. Basinger, 604 F.3d 394 (7th Cir. 2010) (Goudy I). The \\nstate elected not to re‐try him; he was released; and 17 months \\nlater he filed this suit. \\n The district court winnowed the section 1983 action down \\nto three allegations that the investigators in the case violated \\nhis due process rights, by (1) subjecting him to an improper \\nshow‐up procedure, (2) withholding a videotape showing a \\nline‐up in which several witnesses identified a different per‐\\nson as the shooter, and (3) withholding interview notes show‐\\ning that the other suspect initially had denied any involve‐\\nment in the murder, but later switched his story. The court \\ngranted summary judgment for the defendants on all aspects \\nof the case. We conclude that this was premature: Goudy pre‐\\nsented enough evidence on the second and third arguments \\nto move forward. We therefore reverse and remand for fur‐\\nther proceedings. \\n I \\n We can be brief about the underlying incident, which was \\ndescribed by both the Indiana Supreme Court, in Goudy v. \\nState, 689 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 1997), and by this court in our 2010 \\nopinion. On October 3, 1993, two men fired shots into a car \\noccupied by several people, including Marvin McCloud and \\nDamon Nunn. The shooters killed McCloud, who had been \\ndriving, and seriously injured Nunn. A number of people \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 3\\n\\nwitnessed these events, including Jill Barclay, Jackie Barclay \\n(Jill’s sister), LaTonya Young, and Kaidi Harvell. \\n Police from Anderson, Indiana, where the shooting had \\ntaken place, picked up Goudy at the Oasis Club on February \\n5, 1994, after they received an anonymous tip that one of the \\nshooters was there. One of the defendants, Detective Rodney \\nCummings, contacted Jill Barclay and asked her to come to \\nthe police station to make an identification. When she arrived \\nat the station, Detective Steve Napier, Cummings’s partner \\nand the other defendant here, told her that they were going to \\nshow her a suspect in the shooting. Cummings then brought \\nJill into a room with a one‐way mirror and showed her \\nGoudy; she identified him as one of the shooters. She then \\ntalked to Jackie and told him that the shooter she saw looked \\nlike one of their acquaintances. \\n Our focus, however, is on evidence that the jury never \\nheard, because the state never disclosed it to Goudy. First, the \\nstate had three police reports that contained pertinent infor‐\\nmation. We discussed these reports in our 2010 opinion: \\n The first report describes a phone call to police from \\n Jill Barclay in which she said she saw one of the gun‐\\n men at an Indianapolis mall. She stated that she \\n thought he kept looking at her “over his shoulder” and \\n that she later saw him outside “attempting to look at \\n her license plate.” She later identified this man as \\n [Kaidi] Harvell and said she was positive he was one \\n of the gunmen. \\n604 F.3d at 397. The first police report also included infor‐\\nmation about a photo spread that Jill Barclay, Jackie Barclay \\n(Jill’s sister), and LaTonya Young viewed. Jackie and LaTonya \\n\\f4 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\nsaw the shooting from across the street. All three women \\n“’positively and without hesitation’ identified Harvell as the \\ngunman on the driver’s side of McCloud’s car, and said he \\nwore brown clothing.” Id. \\n In addition to the photo lineup, there was an in‐person \\nlineup viewed by Nunn, Jill and Jackie Barclay, as well as an‐\\nother witness, Donzetta Clay (who did not testify at trial). \\nOnce again, the results favored Goudy: “Clay and the Barclay \\nsisters identified Harvell; Nunn identified a non‐suspect as \\nthe shooter.” Id. Moreover, Goudy’s own counsel failed to in‐\\ntroduce a video confession by Goudy’s lookalike half‐brother, \\nRomeo Lee. In that video, Lee identified himself and Harvell \\nas the two shooters. \\n As we noted, after his conviction for murdering McCloud \\nand attempting to murder Nunn, Goudy sought post‐\\nconviction relief. He argued throughout these proceedings \\nthat the state’s failure to comply with Brady had deprived him \\nof a fair trial and that he had received ineffective assistance of \\ncounsel in violation of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 \\n(1984). \\n Goudy was unsuccessful in the state courts, but in Goudy I \\nwe found that the suppressed evidence was both favorable to \\nGoudy’s defense and material. Accordingly, we found that \\nGoudy was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. Goudy I, 604 \\nF.3d at 401. We found it unnecessary to rule on Goudy’s \\nStrickland claim. Id. at 401–02. \\n Goudy is now suing two of the investigators on the case, \\nRodney Cummings and Steve Napier, for depriving him of \\ndue process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See \\nU.S. Const. amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 5\\n\\nCummings wore two hats—that of an investigator and later \\nthat of the County Prosecutor—our focus is on his investiga‐\\ntory work. The same is true of Napier. (We refer to them col‐\\nlectively as the investigators, unless the context requires oth‐\\nerwise.) \\n In general, Goudy’s new case asserts the same due‐process \\ntheory that formed the basis of the decision to issue the writ \\nin Goudy I: that he was deprived of a fair trial in violation of \\nhis constitutional rights, as outlined in the Brady line of cases. \\nBut the conduct for which he seeks to hold the investigators \\nliable is different from the actions and omissions at issue in \\nGoudy I. The issue in Goudy I involved material exculpatory \\nevidence that was not turned over to the defense, but that was \\ngiven to the prosecutors trying the case. Police officers gener‐\\nally discharge their Brady obligations by turning over such ev‐\\nidence to the prosecutors, who in turn have a duty to disclose \\nthe evidence to the defense. Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 776 F.3d \\n500, 512 (7th Cir. 2015). (Notably, “the [Brady] rule encom‐\\npasses evidence known only to police investigators and not to \\nthe prosecutor.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280–81 (1999) \\n(cleaned up).) Cummings and Napier thus cannot be held lia‐\\nble in their capacity as investigators for the failure of the trial \\nprosecutors to turn over the specific police reports at issue in \\nGoudy I. \\n But the three allegations that form the basis of Goudy’s \\nsection 1983 action are new. We focus on two of the three iden‐\\ntified by the district court. The first is Goudy’s assertion that \\nCummings withheld a videotape of the lineup in which mul‐\\ntiple witnesses identified Harvell as a shooter and Nunn iden‐\\ntified a non‐suspect. The second is his allegation that the in‐\\nvestigators both withheld interview notes—newly discovered \\n\\f6 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\nin the course of this litigation—demonstrating that Harvell in‐\\nitially denied being at the scene at all, contradicting his trial \\ntestimony. Together, we refer to these arguments as the Brady \\nallegations. We do not reach Goudy’s third theory, which is \\nthat the investigators’ decision to subject him to an unduly \\nsuggestive “one‐man showup” also violated his rights and \\ntainted all future identifications on which the prosecution re‐\\nlied. \\n It is important to clarify that although the parties occasion‐\\nally refer to Goudy’s “Brady claims” or “identification proce‐\\ndure claim,” his allegations do not give rise to separate claims \\nunder section 1983. Goudy has presented a single claim: that \\nthe defendants are liable for causing him to receive an unfair \\ntrial in violation of his due process rights. Cf. Kyles, 514 U.S. \\nat 436 (materiality of suppressed evidence is considered col‐\\nlectively, not item by item). We therefore look at Goudy’s al‐\\nlegations as a whole, as did the district court. \\n The district court granted summary judgment on the en‐\\ntire case in favor of the defendants. It found the videotape al‐\\nlegation wanting because (among other reasons) there was \\n“no evidence” in the record to support a finding that Cum‐\\nmings intentionally concealed it from the prosecutors. It also \\nfound, with respect to the Harvell interview notes, that the \\ninvestigators had not suppressed them and that, in any event, \\nthe notes were not material for Brady purposes. Finally, the \\ncourt held as a matter of law that the improper identification \\nprocedure could not support either investigator’s liability, be‐\\ncause the prosecutors’ independent decision to introduce the \\nidentification evidence at trial constituted an intervening \\ncause that broke the chain of causation. \\n \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 7\\n\\n II \\n To show a Brady violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) \\nthat the evidence in question was favorable to his defense, ei‐\\nther because it had exculpatory or impeachment value; (2) \\nthat the state “suppressed” the favorable evidence either will‐\\nfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice ensued, which occurs \\nif the evidence was material. Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 \\n(2004); Carvajal v. Dominguez, 542 F.3d 561, 566–67 (7th Cir. \\n2008). The defendants do not dispute that the evidence in \\nquestion was favorable to Goudy. Accordingly, we move di‐\\nrectly to the question whether a reasonable jury could con‐\\nclude that any of the challenged evidence was suppressed. We \\nthen consider the materiality of all the evidence for which the \\nrecord supports a reasonable inference of suppression. \\n A \\n We turn first to the videotape of the lineup. To show sup‐\\npression, Goudy must demonstrate that Cummings blocked \\nthe video from disclosure “in time for the defendant to make \\nuse of it” and that it “was not otherwise available to the de‐\\nfendant through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Carva‐\\njal, 542 F.3d at 567. (Napier was not involved with this aspect \\nof the case.) \\n In order properly to assess Cummings’s actions regarding \\nthe videotape, we must review some background details. In \\nMay 1994, while Cummings was still employed as an Ander‐\\nson police officer, then‐County Prosecutor William Lawler \\nopted to drop charges that previously had been filed against \\nGoudy in order to continue the investigation. Cummings, \\nwho had graduated from law school a few years earlier, ap‐\\nparently disagreed with this decision; he campaigned for \\n\\f8 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\nLawler’s job through the summer and fall of 1994. On Septem‐\\nber 1 of that year, while both the investigation and Cum‐\\nmings’s ultimately successful campaign for County Prosecu‐\\ntor were underway, the police conducted a lineup in which \\nmultiple witnesses identified Kaidi Harvell as a shooter, and \\nvictim Damon Nunn identified a non‐suspect. (Recall, too, \\nthat during an earlier lineup in February 1994, Jill Barclay had \\nfingered Goudy.) Five days later, on September 6, 1994, Cum‐\\nmings checked the video of the September 1 lineup out of the \\nAnderson Police Department Property Room. \\n We do not know where Cummings kept the video, nor do \\nwe have a reliable accounting of its whereabouts at any point \\nbetween September 6, 1994, and November 22, 1995, when \\nCummings returned the video to the police evidence room. \\nWhat we do know is that the following events occurred dur‐\\ning those intervening 14 months. \\n In November 1994, Cummings defeated Lawler in the \\nCounty Prosecutor election. Cummings took office on January \\n1, 1995, and on April 7, 1995, he decided to re‐charge Goudy \\nwith the murder of McCloud and the attempted murder of \\nNunn. At a pre‐trial hearing on October 23, 1995, Goudy \\nmoved for the production of relevant videotapes (including \\nrecordings of lineups), among other evidence, as well as an \\nin‐camera inspection of police reports to determine which \\nones would be discoverable. The court ordered that the vide‐\\notapes should be made available, but it denied the defense’s \\nrequest for the police reports, finding them privileged under \\nIndiana’s work‐product doctrine. (Needless to say, Indiana’s \\nwork‐product privilege does not override the Brady obliga‐\\ntions of its police and prosecutors. Indeed, the failure to \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 9\\n\\nproduce the police reports was the basis for the issuance of \\nthe writ in Goudy I. 604 F.3d at 401.) \\n On November 14, 1995, someone—trial prosecutor Maras‐\\nRoberts testified that it may have been her—added an entry \\nto a handwritten to‐do list that included the phrase “videos of \\nlineup?? still N/A,” which she indicated would have meant \\nthat the September 1 lineup video was “not available.” On \\nNovember 22, the court heard defense counsel’s motion to re‐\\nconsider. It later reaffirmed its ruling denying in‐camera re‐\\nview of the police reports. \\n Also on November 22, a month after the court had ordered \\nthe production of all relevant videotape evidence, Cummings \\n(or someone using Cummings’s old badge number and signa‐\\nture) signed the videotape back into the police property room \\nat 3:36 p.m. Cummings has offered no explanation for why he \\nkept the video for so long nor for why he would have signed \\nthe video back into the police property room, given his \\nacknowledgement that it would have been improper for him \\nto do so once he was no longer an officer on the force. \\n Goudy argues that the best explanation for this series of \\nevents is that Cummings intentionally concealed the video \\nfrom trial prosecutors and prevented them from disclosing it \\nto the defense. The district court found that there was “no ev‐\\nidence to support this theory.” It pointed out that Cummings \\nsigned the video out under his own name—making clear that \\nanyone who was looking for it should seek him out—and that \\nthere was “no evidence in the record that the trial prosecutors \\nmade any attempt to obtain the videotape” during the rele‐\\nvant period. \\n\\f10 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\n The district court’s evaluation of the evidence, however, \\nfails to take the facts in the light most favorable to Goudy. \\nFrom that perspective, we see considerable evidence in the \\nrecord that would permit a trier of fact to conclude that Cum‐\\nmings’s concealment was intentional: the unexplained reten‐\\ntion of the video for 14 months; the return of the video on the \\nvery same date that the judge definitively blocked defense \\ncounsel from seeing the police reports describing it; and the \\ntrial prosecutor’s “still N/A” note. This raises a reasonable in‐\\nference that the trial prosecutors tried and failed to recover \\nthe video, regardless of the clues Cummings may have left be‐\\nhind. A jury could thus find that Cummings’s concealment \\nwas the cause of the prosecutors’ failure to find and disclose \\nthe video. \\n Cummings’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. \\nHe contends that because defense counsel could have ac‐\\nquired the videotape through “reasonable diligence,” the vid‐\\neotape was not “suppressed” for Brady purposes. But what \\nwas defense counsel to do? He evidently suspected that vide‐\\notapes of some lineups existed, because he mentioned them \\nwhile arguing his October 22, 1995, discovery motion. But he \\ndid not sit on this information: he asked that the videos be \\nproduced, and he received nothing. \\n Even if Goudy’s lawyer had located the probable cause af‐\\nfidavit filed to support Harvell’s earlier arrest for the murder \\nand attempted murder in September of 1994, he would have \\nbeen stymied. The affidavit indicates only that Harvell was \\nidentified in both photo and physical lineups by multiple wit‐\\nnesses. But the affidavit is not a stand‐in for the video. Cum‐\\nmings is incorrect to say that the affidavit “specifically refers \\nto a video‐recorded lineup” (emphasis added). Nor does the \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 11\\n\\naffidavit furnish the specific exculpatory and impeachment \\nmaterial—such as the identities of the witnesses that identi‐\\nfied Harvell in conflict with their trial testimony, or Nunn’s \\nidentification of a non‐suspect—found in the video. Cum‐\\nmings also suggests that defense counsel could have gone \\nback to the police property room himself or asked the court to \\ngrant him access, thereby allowing him to discover the video \\nreceipt with Cummings’s signature. But such a step would \\nmake sense only if counsel should have assumed that the state \\nwas dissembling when it did not produce any videotapes. \\n While we have rejected a Brady claim where counsel knew \\nof evidence and failed to subpoena a witness for it, United \\nStates v. Lockhart, 956 F.3d 1418, 1426 (7th Cir. 1992), Cum‐\\nmings points to no case in which we have required defense \\ncounsel to take extra steps to insure against police conceal‐\\nment or bad faith representations after seeking production of \\nthe relevant evidence. In the absence of an open‐file law or \\npractice (which counsel for Cummings and Napier confirmed \\nat oral argument did not exist in Madison County at the time), \\nGoudy’s defense counsel had every right to rely on the repre‐\\nsentations the trial prosecutors made that they had turned \\nover all relevant video evidence in accordance with the \\njudge’s October 22 ruling. \\n At trial, Goudy will need to show, by a preponderance of \\nthe evidence, that Cummings is the person responsible for the \\nstate’s suppression of the evidence. A jury might find that the \\nprosecution’s failure to disclose the video originated with \\nsomeone other than Cummings—perhaps trial prosecutors \\nMaras‐Roberts or Puckett. They knew of the video’s existence \\nand allowed the trial to proceed without its being disclosed to \\nthe defense. But a jury would also be entitled to infer that the \\n\\f12 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\n“still N/A” note indicated that Cummings had somehow pre‐\\nvented Maras‐Roberts from acquiring the video despite her \\nbest efforts. The facts are far from undisputed on this point. \\n Finally, Cummings argues that even if we found that the \\nvideotape was withheld, he is entitled to prosecutorial im‐\\nmunity. The district court did not base its ruling on prosecu‐\\ntorial immunity, and with good reason: Cummings’s actions \\n(removing the video and hanging onto it for 14 months) had \\nnothing to do with his prosecutorial responsibilities. He re‐\\nmoved and retained the video in his capacity as a police de‐\\ntective. Any entitlement to immunity that Cummings enjoys \\nfor actions taken in his prosecutorial capacity after April 7, \\n1995, is beside the point. \\n B \\n We next turn to the question whether Cummings and Na‐\\npier suppressed the interview notes indicating that Harvell \\nhad initially denied being at the scene of the crime and then \\nprovided a false alibi. All agree that the prosecution failed to \\nturn these notes over to Goudy’s defense counsel. But the dis‐\\ntrict court ruled that even if someone had suppressed this evi‐\\ndence, Cummings and Napier could not personally be held \\nliable for doing so, because of a deposition in which trial pros‐\\necutor Puckett says that he is “certain as can be” that he knew \\nbefore trial that Harvell had initially denied any involvement. \\n We do not agree that Puckett’s testimony takes Cummings \\nand Napier off the hook for suppressing the Harvell interview \\nnotes. Puckett’s testimony is equivocal about where or how \\nhe supposedly learned that Harvell had initially denied being \\npresent at the scene. Puckett indicated that he has “no present \\nrecollection of seeing those notes,” and that he merely \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 13\\n\\nassumed that he got the information about Harvell’s previous \\ndenials from the officers. (He explained that he did not recall \\nspeaking with Harvell personally before the time when he be‐\\nlieves he learned of Harvell’s early denials.) \\n Even if Cummings and Napier did communicate the infor‐\\nmation that Harvell had initially denied being present at the \\nscene, that is quite different from disclosing the notes them‐\\nselves. Contemporaneous documentary evidence of Harvell’s \\ndenials—which took place during an hour‐long interview—\\nwould prove much more useful as impeachment evidence \\nthan any secondhand oral recollection of a statement Harvell \\nhad made more than a year earlier. \\n This makes Goudy’s case unlike Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 776 \\nF.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2015), on which the district court relied. In \\nBeaman, police officers discharged their Brady obligations by \\nturning over to the prosecutors documentary evidence point‐\\ning to an alternative suspect. Id. at 512. Here, there is at most \\na single deposition indicating that a single prosecutor believes \\nhe learned—from someone, probably the defendants—that \\nHarvell had initially denied involvement. \\n Nothing in this record indicates that the actual interview \\nnotes were ever provided to the trial prosecutors. The record \\ndoes, however, contain enough to permit a jury to find that (a) \\nthe trial prosecutors did not have the notes, and (b) Napier \\nand Cummings knowingly brought about that omission. The \\ninvestigators conducted the interview together, and Napier \\ntook the notes by hand. Napier admitted that, contrary to his \\nusual practice, he did not convert this interview into a police \\nreport, which would have found its way to the trial prosecu‐\\ntors’ file. While Puckett has a vague recollection that he knew \\nof Harvell’s early denials, Maras‐Roberts disclaims having \\n\\f14 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\nhad any knowledge of the notes or their contents. And both \\nPuckett and Maras‐Roberts concede that under Brady, they \\nwould have had to tender the notes to the defense had they \\nbeen in possession of them. In the light most favorable to \\nGoudy, these facts would entitle a trier of fact to conclude that \\nCummings and Napier were responsible for the fact that the \\ntrial prosecutors never got the notes, and thus neither did the \\ndefense. \\n The district court based its conclusion that there was no \\nsuppression of information, as required by Brady, on its as‐\\nsumption that the prosecution was aware of the information \\nfound in the notes. It also suggested (but did not explicitly \\nrule) in the alternative that “it appears likely that Mr. Goudy’s \\ncriminal defense attorney could have discovered [the notes] \\nthrough reasonable diligence.” In support of this comment, \\nthe court pointed to evidence of a follow‐up conversation be‐\\ntween Cummings and Harvell in September 1994. At that \\ntime, Cummings referred to the earlier interview and said to \\nHarvell, “[w]e [the defendants and Harvell] had some conver‐\\nsation. You elected at that time not to talk to us; is that cor‐\\nrect?” Goudy’s defense counsel was aware of this conversa‐\\ntion. \\n The question for us is whether the possible existence of a \\nmore detailed statement from Harvell was so obvious from \\nCummings’s 1994 follow‐up interview that the investigators \\nshould be relieved of liability for not disclosing it. Again bear‐\\ning in mind the fact that we are reviewing a summary judg‐\\nment record, we think not. Even if it was not purposefully \\nmisleading, Cummings’s reference to the earlier interview \\nwas cryptic enough that a diligent defense representative \\nmight have determined there was nothing to see in the notes \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 15\\n\\nof that initial interview, or that notes of that previous inter‐\\nview may not exist. Goudy’s counsel cannot be criticized for \\nfailing to guess that Harvell’s initial statement was more sub‐\\nstantive than Cummings let on. Cummings’s follow‐up inter‐\\nview with Harvell thus does nothing to change our conclusion \\non this issue: a reasonable jury could decide that Napier’s \\nnotes from the initial interview were suppressed. \\n C \\n Having established that a trier of fact could find that Cum‐\\nmings suppressed the lineup videotape and both investiga‐\\ntors suppressed the interview notes, we now turn to the ques‐\\ntion of materiality. To show that the suppressed evidence was \\nmaterial to the outcome of his trial, Goudy must demonstrate \\nthat there is a “reasonable probability” that the result would \\nhave been different had the suppressed evidence been put be‐\\nfore the jury. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 422. As we emphasized in \\nGoudy I, the “reasonable probability standard for materiality \\n… is less rigorous than a preponderance of the evidence \\nstandard.” 604 F.3d at 399 (citing Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434). \\nGoudy must show only that “the cumulative effect of all the \\nsuppressed information is to undermine confidence in the \\nverdict.” Id. at 399. (No one has argued that this standard is \\ndifferent in a case under section 1983, such as this one, from \\nthe standard that applies in habeas corpus actions. We there‐\\nfore do not explore that possibility.) We assess this cumulative \\neffect “in the context of the entire record,” Beaman, 776 F.3d at \\n507 (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112 (1976)). \\n A rational trier of fact could find that Goudy has put \\nenough in the record to prevail. First, even if the videotape \\nwere the only piece of suppressed evidence, the jury could \\nfind it material against the backdrop of the lack of definitive \\n\\f16 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\nphysical evidence, the state’s reliance on eyewitness testi‐\\nmony, the inconsistencies among the testifying witnesses at \\ntrial, and the utility of the video as both evidence of an excul‐\\npatory theory and impeachment. \\n As we explained in Goudy I, the identifications made at \\ntrial were hardly ironclad. “The jury heard five witnesses say \\nthey saw Goudy firing a gun into McCloud’s car, but four of \\nthem did not agree on Goudy’s height, which side of the car \\nhe was on, whether he wore a hat and whether he wore a dark \\njacket and jeans or a full brown work uniform.” Goudy I, 604 \\nF.3d at 400. The video would have shown three of these wit‐\\nnesses identifying Harvell as one of the shooters at a time \\nwhen the defense was in possession of Romeo Lee’s confes‐\\nsion, which identified himself and Harvell as the two shoot‐\\ners. The video could therefore play a key role in advancing an \\nexculpatory theory of the case. (Evidence in the record that \\nGoudy and his lookalike brother Lee were routinely confused \\nfor each other would have bolstered this theory.) The video \\ncould also prove useful in impeaching both Harvell and \\nNunn, who appeared in the video identifying a non‐suspect. \\nWhile our cumulative materiality analysis in Goudy I included \\nother pieces of suppressed evidence not at issue here—such \\nas a report of a photo lineup in which a fourth witness identi‐\\nfied Harvell—those additional pieces of evidence would not \\nbe necessary for a jury to find materiality in this case. The vid‐\\neotape alone is enough. \\n But Goudy has more: the Harvell interview notes. The in‐\\nterview notes would have driven one more spike in a weak‐\\nened case. They would have depicted the state’s star witness, \\nHarvell, as both a suspect in serious jeopardy and a person \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 17\\n\\nwhose story (contrary to the prosecution’s closing argument) \\nhad changed significantly. \\n It is true that Napier, unlike Cummings, was at most re‐\\nsponsible for the suppression of the notes. The question of \\nmateriality may thus turn out to be different for Napier than \\nit is for Cummings. But given the obvious value of the notes \\nas potential impeachment evidence, it is for a jury to decide \\nwhether the material Napier was personally responsible for \\nsuppressing is sufficient to undermine confidence in the ver‐\\ndict. For this reason, it would be premature to rule in his favor \\nat this stage. Furthermore, as we explained above, Goudy \\nbrings a single claim based on one overarching constitutional \\nharm: that he was deprived of a fair trial in violation of his \\ndue process rights. He alleges that both Cummings and Na‐\\npier contributed to that constitutional injury, albeit in differ‐\\nent ways. Section 1983 liability must be understood against \\nthe background of the ordinary principles of tort law, where \\njoint and several liability is the norm. Whitlock v. Brueggemann, \\n682 F.3d 567, 582 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Watts v. Laurent, 774 \\nF.2d 168, 179 (7th Cir. 1985) (imposing joint and several liabil‐\\nity in a section 1983 case and noting that “[f]ederal common \\nlaw principles of tort and damages govern recovery under \\nsection 1983”). We see no reason to deviate from that norm \\nhere. \\n The Supreme Court has instructed us to look at the impact \\nof withheld evidence in the aggregate, rather than seriatim. \\nKyles, 514 U.S. at 440. For this reason, we consider it appropri‐\\nate that all defendants who can be shown to have “sup‐\\npressed” evidence in violation of Brady—that is, “all of the de‐\\nfendants [who] have committed the … illegal act,” Fillmore, \\n\\f18 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\n358 F.3d at 507—should be liable for the aggregate impact on \\nthe outcome of the trial Goudy ultimately received. \\n III \\n The investigators finally argue that even if Goudy’s alle‐\\ngations (taken in the light most favorable to him) satisfy all \\nthe elements of a Brady violation, qualified immunity protects \\nthem here. In order to fend off this defense, a plaintiff must \\nshow that “a constitutional right would have been violated on \\nthe facts alleged,” and that “the right at issue was clearly es‐\\ntablished at the relevant time.” Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. \\n765, 774 (2014). These inquiries—particularly the first one—\\nmust be undertaken at the proper level of specificity. Anderson \\nv. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 649 (1987). \\n Goudy’s allegations (if proven) describe a constitutional \\nviolation: the infringement of the due‐process right to obtain \\nexculpatory evidence, in this case through the investigators’ \\nconcealment of that evidence from the trial prosecutors. \\nMoreover, at the time of these events, this right was clearly \\nestablished. We see no need to repeat the underlying facts \\nwith respect to the video here. We add only that the fortuity \\nthat Cummings changed job titles over the period of his reten‐\\ntion of the video does not have any effect on our analysis. At \\nthe time he allegedly acted to suppress evidence, he was still \\na police officer, and he was not acting in a prosecutorial ca‐\\npacity when he checked the video back into the evidence \\nroom. It was already clearly established as early as 1981 that \\npolice could not withhold exculpatory information from pros‐\\necutors. See Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1988) \\n(affirming award of damages against officers who withheld \\nexculpatory information in 1981). Nothing had changed as of \\n\\fNo. 17‐3665 19\\n\\n1994 and 1995, when these defendants were involved in \\nGoudy’s case. \\n The same conclusion applies to the Harvell interview \\nnotes. Cummings and Napier urge us to frame the qualified \\nimmunity issue regarding the notes as follows: “whether it \\nwas clearly established in 1994 that an initial denial of in‐\\nvolvement by a suspect, when that suspect later admits in‐\\nvolvement in the crime, is material impeachment evidence \\nsuch that a police officer can be held monetarily liable for not \\nproviding it.” \\n Even on this narrow view of the issue, materiality is easy \\nto see: flip‐flops in accounts about the central events in a case \\nprovide rich impeachment evidence, and potentially evidence \\non the merits. In addition, there are problems with the state’s \\nversion. It cannot be the case that the qualified‐immunity in‐\\nquiry is so specific that materiality depends on the outcome \\nof a trial. If we were to adopt such an approach, we would \\nshield officers from liability for withholding impeachment ev‐\\nidence whenever materiality was a close call (for example, if \\nthe police officer felt the overall case was strong enough). \\nSuch a shield would be incompatible with the rule announced \\nand elaborated in the Brady line of cases. \\n Even if we were to formulate the inquiry as the investiga‐\\ntors suggest, we would need to add something along the lines \\nof: “when that suspect is the state’s star witness, the other \\nidentifying testimony contains serious internal inconsisten‐\\ncies, and there is a dearth of physical evidence tying the ac‐\\ncused to the crime.” The state’s case here was far from a slam \\ndunk. A finding of liability does not require a case such as Boss \\nv. Pierce, 263 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2001), in which the subject of \\nthe suppressed impeachment evidence was the only witness \\n\\f20 No. 17‐3665 \\n\\ntying the accused to the crime. Id at 736. It should have been \\nobvious to Napier and Cummings that evidence impeaching \\nthe story told by the state’s main cooperating witness, in a \\ncase with no physical evidence and inconsistent witness iden‐\\ntifications, needed to be disclosed. (Notably, trial prosecutors \\nPuckett and Maras‐Roberts acknowledged that they would \\nhave had to disclose the notes had they possessed them.) \\n Of course, it is still up to the jury to decide whether Napier \\nand Cummings suppressed these pieces of evidence. But if \\nthey did, they cannot use qualified immunity to avoid liabil‐\\nity. \\n IV \\n Goudy has presented enough to go to trial on his allega‐\\ntions that Cummings and Napier violated his due process \\nright to a fair trial. We need not and do not address his alle‐\\ngation that the allegedly improper one‐man “showup” proce‐\\ndure independently constituted a basis for liability. On re‐\\nmand, the district court is free to consider this issue afresh; \\nevidence of the showup procedure may prove to be relevant \\nat trial as Goudy seeks to hold the defendants liable for his \\nconstitutional injury. \\n We REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judg‐\\nment and REMAND the case for further proceedings con‐\\nsistent with this opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":20,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":31175,"offset":2000,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc3ODgxMDA4NCwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL2VpdGFucy1wdS9jbC1jb2RpbmctaW5wdXQiLCJleHAiOjE3Nzg4MTM2ODQsImlzcyI6Imh0dHBzOi8vaHVnZ2luZ2ZhY2UuY28ifQ.iq_EOCjYoGkE3RSkzwdAgVvnoek3GUXeBqOd_f6lMGTr7n30LTmIZO_tmwELGg1H5VGWpRio_EaH-FbrNqf8Bw","displayUrls":true,"splitSizeSummaries":[{"config":"default","split":"train","numRows":31175,"numBytesParquet":1629387251}]},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":1,"total":1},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
id int64 | name string | name_abbreviation string | decision_date string | docket_number string | court string | casebody string | judge1 string | judge2 string | judge3 string | exactly_three_caps int64 | extra_judges string | judge_designations string | opinions_count int64 | majority_count int64 | dissent_count int64 | concurrence_count int64 | other_count int64 | primary_citation string | reporter string | volume null | resource_url string | precedential_status string | 010combined_count int64 | 020lead_count int64 | 030concurrence_count int64 | 035concurrenceinpart_count int64 | 040dissent_count int64 | year int64 | month int64 | messages list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4,616,173 | Claudio TUNDO; James Racanelli; Ruben Gilgorri v. COUNTY OF PASSAIC; Passaic County Sheriff Jerry Speziale; Warden Charles Myers Claudio Tundo; Ruben Gilgorri, Appellants | Claudio Tundo v. County of Passaic | 2019-05-02 | 18-1460 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | {"judges": "Chagares, Bibas, Sánchez", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BIBAS, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "PRECEDENTIAL\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT\n _______________\n\n No. 18-1460\n _______________\n\nCLAUDIO ... | CHAGARES | BIBAS | SÁNCHEZ | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4616173/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,616,647 | UNITED STATES of America v. James BAILEY-SNYDER, Appellant | United States v. James Bailey-Snyder | 2019-05-03 | 18-1601 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | {"judges": "Hardiman, Scirica, Rendell", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "PRECEDENTIAL\n\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT\n ___________\n\n No. 18-1601\n ... | HARDIMAN | SCIRICA | RENDELL | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4616647/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,616,648 | Jane Doe v. Heart Solution PC | 2019-05-03 | 17-2019 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | {"judges": "Present: JORDAN, ROTH and STEARNS*, Circuit Judges 1.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT\n\n No. 17-2019\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex r... | JORDAN | ROTH | STEARNS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4616648/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,616,649 | UNITED STATES of America EX REL. Jane DOE v. HEART SOLUTION, PC; Biosound Medical Services ; Kirtish N. Patel; Nimesh Patel; Nita K. Patel Heart Solution PC and Nita K. Patel, Appellants | United States Ex Rel. Jane Doe v. Heart Solution, PC | 2019-05-03 | 17-2019 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | {"judges": "Jordan, Roth, Stearns", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by", "type": "010combined", "text": "PRECEDENTIAL\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT\n ________________\n\n No. 17-2019\n ... | JORDAN | ROTH | STEARNS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4616649/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,617,340 | SIH PARTNERS LLLP, Explorer Partner Corporation, Tax Matters Partner, Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE | SIH Partners LLLP Explorer Par v. Commissioner of Internal Reven | 2019-05-07 | 18-1862 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | {"judges": "Ambro, Restrepo, Greenberg", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "PRECEDENTIAL\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT\n ______________\n\n No. 18-1862\n ______________\n\... | AMBRO | RESTREPO | GREENBERG | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617340/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,715 | UNITED STATES of America v. Rehelio D. TRANT, Appellant | United States v. Rehelio Trant | 2019-05-15 | 18-3199 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | {"judges": "Smith, Jordan, Rendell", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SMITH, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "PRECEDENTIAL\n\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT\n _____________\n\n No. 18-3199\n _____... | SMITH | JORDAN | RENDELL | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619715/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,913 | In RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 and Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund; JB Hunt Transport Services, Inc., Appellants | In re: Avandia Marketing v. | 2019-05-15 | 18-2259 & 18-2656 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | {"judges": "Smith, Restrepo", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888512/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "035concurrenceinpart", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/... | SMITH | RESTREPO | SMITH | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619913/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,623,705 | ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OPTUM INC., OptumInsight, Inc., Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C., Appellant | Robert W. Mauthe, M.D. P.C. v. Optum, Inc. | 2019-05-28 | 18-2894 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | {"judges": "Ambro, Restrepo, Greenberg", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "010combined", "text": "PRECEDENTIAL\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT\n ______________\n\n No. 18-2894\n ______________\n\n R... | AMBRO | RESTREPO | GREENBERG | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623705/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,623,706 | Mohamed SAMBARE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES of America Respondent | Mohamed Sambare v. Attorney General United States | 2019-05-28 | 18-1337 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | {"judges": "Ambro, Restrepo, Greenberg", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "RESTREPO, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "PRECEDENTIAL\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT\n _____________\n\n No. 18-1337\n _____________\n\n... | AMBRO | RESTREPO | GREENBERG | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623706/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,616,681 | Thomas PORTER; Anthony Bernard Juniper; Mark Lawlor, Plaintiffs - Appellees, and Ricky Gray; Ivan Teleguz, Plaintiffs, v. Harold W. CLARKE; David Zook, Defendants - Appellants. American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Incorporated; The Rutherford Institute; Professors and Practitioners of Psychiatry and Psychology, ... | Thomas Porter v. Harold Clarke | 2019-05-03 | 18-6257 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Niemeyer, King, Wynn", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888453/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opini... | NIEMEYER | KING | WYNN | 1 | {} | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4616681/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,617,011 | Thomas Porter v. Harold Clarke | 2019-05-06 | 18-6257 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WYNN, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n ... | NIEMEYER | KING | WYNN | 1 | {"NIEMEYER": ", Circuit", "KING": ", Circuit", "WYNN": ", Circuit"} | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617011/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,617,692 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Germaine CANNADY, Defendant - Appellant. | United States v. Germaine Cannady | 2019-05-08 | 18-4339 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Wilkinson, Diaz, Floyd", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "FLOYD, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n No. 18-4339\n\n\nUNITED STAT... | WILKINSON | DIAZ | FLOYD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617692/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,617,693 | In RE: Charles Taylor MUHS, Debtor. TKC Aerospace Inc., Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Charles Taylor Muhs, Defendant - Appellant. | TKC Aerospace Inc. v. Muhs (In Re Muhs) | 2019-05-08 | 18-1372 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Motz, King, Thacker", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "THACKER, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n No. 18-1372\n\... | MOTZ | KING | THACKER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617693/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,618,742 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Phillip Jazir THOMPSON, A/K/A Dashawn Andre Saunders, A/K/A Phillip Thompson, A/K/A Jonathan Bellamy, Defendant - Appellant. | United States v. Phillip Thompson | 2019-05-10 | 18-4100 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Gregory, Thacker, Harris", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n No. 18-4100\n\n\nUN... | GREGORY | THACKER | HARRIS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4618742/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,618,747 | Altony BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Lieutenant JOHNSON; Captain Jacumin; Officer Fludd, Defendants - Appellees, and Hill Finklea Detention Center; Officer John Doe; Nurse John Doe; Officer John Doe; Officer Greene; Officer Johnson; Berkeley County Sheriff's Office, Defendants. Altony Brooks, Plaintiff - Appellant,... | Altony Brooks v. Captain Jacumin | 2019-05-10 | 17-7261; 17-7448 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Keenan, Wynn, Harris", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n No. 17-7261\n\n\nALTONY BROOKS,\n\n ... | KEENAN | WYNN | HARRIS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4618747/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,620,849 | Sharyl Thompson ATTKISSON; James Howard Attkisson; Sarah Judith Starr Attkisson, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Eric Himpton HOLDER, Jr., Individually; Patrick R. Donahoe, Individually; Unknown Named Agents of the Department of Justice, in Their Individual Capacities; Unknown Named Agents of the United States Postal Servi... | Sharyl Attkisson v. Eric Holder, Jr. | 2019-05-17 | 18-1677 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Wynn", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888529/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "035concurrenceinpart", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opini... | KING | WYNN | KING | 1 | {} | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4620849/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,620,850 | CASA DE MARYLAND; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Fair Immigration Movement (FIRM); One America; Promise Arizona; Make the Road Pennsylvania; Michigan United ; Arkansas United Community Coalition; Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. ; Angel Aguiluz; Estefany Rodriguez; Heymi Elvir Maldonado; Nathaly Urib... | Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland SEC. | 2019-05-17 | 18-1521; 18-1522 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Diaz, Richardson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888531/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "035concurrenceinpart", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/r... | KING | DIAZ | RICHARDSON | 1 | {} | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4620850/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,622,211 | Glenda W. WESTMORELAND, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC, D/B/A Time Warner Cable, Defendant - Appellant. | Glenda Westmoreland v. TWC Administration LLC | 2019-05-22 | 18-1600 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Gregory, Niemeyer, Motz", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888568/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/op... | GREGORY | NIEMEYER | MOTZ | 1 | {} | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4622211/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,622,212 | ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, A/S/O Minh Nguyen and Anh Nguyen, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant - Appellee, and Ebay, Inc., Defendant. | Erie Insurance Company v. Amazon.com, Inc. | 2019-05-22 | 18-1198 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Gregory, Niemeyer, Motz", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n No. 18-1198\n\n\nERIE IN... | GREGORY | NIEMEYER | MOTZ | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4622212/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,622,766 | Ruth Jeanette ORELLANA, A/K/A Ruth Yeanette-Orellana, A/K/A Ruth Jeanetta Orellana, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. | Ruth Jeanette Orellana v. William Barr | 2019-05-23 | 18-1513 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Motz, King, Wynn", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n No. 18-1513\n\n\nRUTH ... | MOTZ | KING | WYNN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4622766/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,623,279 | Larry Albert HURLBURT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Juliet J. BLACK, Defendant - Appellee, and Joseph A. Bledsoe, III, Trustee. National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys; National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center, Amici Supporting Appellant. | Larry Hurlburt v. Juliet Black | 2019-05-24 | 17-2449 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, MOTZ, KING, AGEE, KEENAN, WYNN, DIAZ, FLOYD, THACKER, HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WYNN, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "ON REHEARING EN BANC\n\n ... | GREGORY | WILKINSON | NIEMEYER | 2 | MOTZ; KING; AGEE; KEENAN; WYNN; DIAZ; FLOYD; THACKER; HARRIS; RICHARDSON; QUATTLEBAUM | {"GREGORY": ", Chief", "WILKINSON": ", Circuit", "NIEMEYER": ", Circuit", "MOTZ": ", Circuit", "KING": ", Circuit", "AGEE": ", Circuit", "KEENAN": ", Circuit", "WYNN": ", Circuit", "DIAZ": ", Circuit", "FLOYD": ", Circuit", "THACKER": ", Circuit", "HARRIS": ", Circuit", "RICHARDSON": ", Circuit", "QUATTLEBAUM": ", Circ... | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623279/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||
4,624,109 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Ezekiel DENNISON, A/K/A OG, Defendant - Appellant. | United States v. Ezekiel Dennison | 2019-05-29 | 18-4010 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Gregory, Niemeyer, Motz", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Affirmed by published opinion. Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n ... | GREGORY | NIEMEYER | MOTZ | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624109/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,624,110 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Delfino Natalio DE LEON-RAMIREZ, A/K/A Enrique Roblero Escobar, A/K/A Alejandro Pablo Hernandez, A/K/A Delfino Puac-Deleon, A/K/A Delfino Deleon-Ramerez, A/K/A Delfino De Leonfino-Ramirez, Defendant - Appellant. | United States v. Delfino De Leon-Ramirez | 2019-05-29 | 18-4121 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Wynn, Diaz, Richardson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "DIAZ, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n No. 18-4121\n\n\nUNITED STATES O... | WYNN | DIAZ | RICHARDSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624110/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,624,788 | Thomas H. KRAKAUER, on Behalf of a Class of Persons, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DISH NETWORK, L.L.C., Defendant - Appellant. DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar ; Product Liability Advisory Council, Incorporated, Amici Supporting Appellants. | Krakauer v. Dish Network, L. L.C. | 2019-05-30 | 18-1518 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and Irene C. BERGER, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED ST... | WILKINSON | KING | IRENE C BERGER | 1 | {"WILKINSON": ", Circuit", "KING": ", Circuit", "C BERGER": ", United States District"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624788/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,625,337 | J.D., BY His Father and Next Friend, Brian DOHERTY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG FOUNDATION, Defendant - Appellee. National Disability Rights Network ; Disability Law Center for Virginia; Scott Hayes ; Virginia Food Allergy Advocates, Amici Supporting Appellant. | J.D. by Doherty v. Colonial Williamsburg Found. | 2019-05-31 | 18-1725 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Wilkinson, Diaz, Floyd", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888641/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opi... | WILKINSON | DIAZ | FLOYD | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625337/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,615,576 | In the MATTER OF: VCR I, L.L.C. Debtor Gluckstadt Holdings, L.L.C., Appellant v. VCR I, L.L.C., Appellee | Gluckstadt Holdings, L. L.C. v. VCR I, L. L.C. (In Re VCR I, L.L.C.) | 2019-05-01 | 18-60368 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Stewart, Davis, Elrod", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-60368 Document: 00514937976 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | STEWART | DAVIS | ELROD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4615576/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,615,778 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos VASQUEZ-PUENTE, Defendant-Appellant | United States v. Carlos Vasquez-Puente | 2019-05-01 | 17-41099 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Clement, Duncan, Oldham", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STUART KYLE DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-41099 Document: 00514938636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT... | CLEMENT | DUNCAN | OLDHAM | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4615778/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,615,780 | Shahram SHAKOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division ; Kelli Ward ; Melodee Blalock; Bobbie Turner-Parker, Defendants-Appellees. | Shahram Shakouri v. Glen Whitfield | 2019-05-01 | 17-20738 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Owen, Southwick, Higginson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-20738 Document: 00514938691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | OWEN | SOUTHWICK | HIGGINSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4615780/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,616,174 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Hector PARRALES-GUZMAN, Also Known as Hector Guzman Parrales, Also Known as Hector Guzman Perales, Also Known as Hector Parrales Guzman, Also Known as Hector Perales-Guzman, Also Known as Hector Parrales, Defendant - Appellant. | United States v. Hector Parrales-Guzman | 2019-05-02 | 16-20700 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Elrod, Higginson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 16-20700 Document: 00514940245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | KING | ELROD | HIGGINSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4616174/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,616,267 | Jerry Reed v. Allison Taylor | 2019-05-02 | 17-20519 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before ELROD, WILLETT, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "DON R. WILLETT, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-20519 Document: 00514940593 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FO... | ELROD | WILLETT | DUNCAN | 1 | {"ELROD": ", Circuit", "WILLETT": ", Circuit", "DUNCAN": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4616267/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
8,443,994 | Jerry REED v. Allison TAYLOR, in her Individual Capacity Barbara MacNair, in her Official and Individual Capacity Program Specialist Holly White, in her Official and Individual Capacity Kristy Alford, in her Official and Individual Capacity Marsha McLane, in her Official Capacity | Reed v. Taylor | 2019-05-02 | No. 17-20519 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Duncan, Elrod, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415428/", "author_raw": ""}]} | DUNCAN | ELROD | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443994/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,616,793 | United States v. William Rand | 2019-05-03 | 17-11270 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before CLEMENT, OWEN and HO, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n United States Court of Appeals\n ... | CLEMENT | OWEN | HO | 1 | {"CLEMENT": ", Circuit", "OWEN": ", Circuit", "HO": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4616793/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,617,118 | Wendy Yessenia CANTARERO-LAGOS; Henry Omar Bonilla-Cantarero, Petitioners v. William P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent | Wendy Cantarero-Lagos v. William Barr, U. S | 2019-05-06 | 18-60115 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Davis, Jones, Dennis", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-60115 Document: 00514945222 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | DAVIS | JONES | DENNIS | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617118/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,617,124 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Albin Alexander TORRES, Also Known as Alvin Alexander Torres, Also Known as Albin Alexander Torres-Menjivar, Also Known as Albin Torres-Menjybar, Defendant - Appellant | United States v. Albin Torres | 2019-05-06 | 16-20191 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jolly, Southwick, Oldham", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 16-20191 Document: 00514945099 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | JOLLY | SOUTHWICK | OLDHAM | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617124/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,617,441 | Deborah Lemon v. Nurses To Go, Incorporated | 2019-05-07 | 18-20326 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before DAVIS, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-20326 Document: 00514947088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR... | DAVIS | JONES | DENNIS | 1 | {"DAVIS": ", Circuit", "JONES": ", Circuit", "DENNIS": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617441/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
8,444,000 | UNITED STATES of America, EX REL, Deborah LEMON, relator Sarah Diaz, relator Eric Castillo, relator LAVERNE FOWLER, relator v. NURSES TO GO, INCORPORATED Walter F. Crowder AMed Health, Incorporated Tejas Quality Home Health Care, Incorporated AMed Community Hospice Austin, Incorporated AMed Community Hospice San Antoni... | United States ex rel Lemon v. Nurses To Go, Incorporated | 2019-05-07 | No. 18-20326 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Davis, Dennis, Jones", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415434/", "author_raw": ""}]} | DAVIS | DENNIS | JONES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444000/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,617,880 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Blanca Nieve VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Elba Luz Dominguez-Portillo Defendant - Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Maynor Alonso Claudino Lopez, Defendant - Appellant United States ... | United States v. Blanca Vasquez-Hernandez | 2019-05-08 | 18-50492 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Higginson, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-50492 Document: 00514948510 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | KING | HIGGINSON | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617880/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,617,883 | James Latiolais v. Eagle, Incorporated | 2019-05-08 | 18-30652 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before STEWART, Chief Judge, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, COSTA, WILLETT, HO, DUNCAN, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Judge Engelhardt is recused and did not participate in this decision", "type": "010combined", "text": "IN TH... | STEWART | JONES | SMITH | 2 | DENNIS; OWEN; ELROD; SOUTHWICK; HAYNES; GRAVES; HIGGINSON; COSTA; WILLETT; HO; DUNCAN; OLDHAM | {"STEWART": ", Chief", "JONES": ", Circuit", "SMITH": ", Circuit", "DENNIS": ", Circuit", "OWEN": ", Circuit", "ELROD": ", Circuit", "SOUTHWICK": ", Circuit", "HAYNES": ", Circuit", "GRAVES": ", Circuit", "HIGGINSON": ", Circuit", "COSTA": ", Circuit", "WILLETT": ", Circuit", "HO": ", Circuit", "DUNCAN": ", Circuit", "... | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617883/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,443,995 | James A. LATIOLAIS v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Incorporated, formerly known as Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Incorporated, formerly known as Avondale Industries, Incorporated | Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. | 2019-05-08 | No. 18-30652 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415429/"}]} | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443995/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||||
4,618,794 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Spencer SALCEDO, Defendant - Appellant | United States v. Spencer Salcedo | 2019-05-10 | 18-40359 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Smith, Higginson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-40359 Document: 00514952192 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | HIGGINBOTHAM | SMITH | HIGGINSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4618794/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,618,797 | In the MATTER OF Kenneth Wayne BENJAMIN, Debtor Kenneth Wayne Benjamin, Appellant v. United States of America, Social Security Administration, Appellee | Benjamin v. United States (In Re Benjamin) | 2019-05-10 | 18-20185 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-20185 Document: 00514952823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | CLEMENT | GRAVES | OLDHAM | 1 | {"CLEMENT": ", Circuit", "GRAVES": ", Circuit", "OLDHAM": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4618797/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,618,798 | Jose CARMONA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEO SHIP MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. | Jose Carmona v. Leo Ship Management, Inc. | 2019-05-10 | 18-20248 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Smith, Higginson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-20248 Document: 00514952518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH C... | HIGGINBOTHAM | SMITH | HIGGINSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4618798/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,098 | In the MATTER OF: Sharon Boyd RILEY, Debtor Thomas C. McBride; McBride Law Firm; Thomas C. McBride, L.L.C.; Joseph Moore; E. Orum Young Law, L.L.C., Appellants v. Sharon Boyd Riley; Jon C. Thornburg; E. Eugene Hastings, Appellees | Thomas McBride v. Sharon Riley | 2019-05-13 | 18-30535 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Reavley, Elrod, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-30535 Document: 00514954686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR T... | REAVLEY | ELROD | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619098/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,099 | MCDONNEL GROUP, L.L.C., Plaintiff - Appellant v. GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE, UK BRANCH, Improperly Named as Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London; Lloyd's Syndicates, CNP 4444 and CNP 958, Improperly Named as Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London; Inter Hannover, Improperly Named as Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, L... | McDonnel Group, L.L.C. v. Certain Underwriters at | 2019-05-13 | 18-30817 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jolly, Jones, Dennis", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-30817 Document: 00514954289 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | JOLLY | JONES | DENNIS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619099/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,338 | Juan Gerardo Sandoval LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Mike POMPEO, Secretary, U.S. Department of State; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees | Juan Sandoval Lopez v. Mike Pompeo, Secretary, et | 2019-05-14 | 18-40175 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "James, Clement, Owen", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888506/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/o... | JAMES | CLEMENT | OWEN | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619338/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,976 | Melida Teresa LUNA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. | Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen | 2019-05-15 | 16-60847 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before JOLLY, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 16-60847 Document: 00514958632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | JOLLY | ELROD | WILLETT | 1 | {"JOLLY": ", Circuit", "ELROD": ", Circuit", "WILLETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619976/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,977 | LISA M., as parents/guardians/next Friends of J.M., a Minor Individual With a Disability; Kenneth M., as parents/guardians/next Friends of J.M., a Minor Individual With a Disability, Plaintiffs - Appellees v. LEANDER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant - Appellant | Lisa M. v. Leander Independent Sch Dist | 2019-05-15 | 18-50160 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Higginson, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-50160 Document: 00514958346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ... | KING | HIGGINSON | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619977/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,978 | Doctor David MASEL; Dinesh Chandiramani; Neuron Shield, L.L.C.; Neuron Shield Partners I, L.P.; Neuron Shield 2, L.L.C.; Neuron Shield Partners 2, L.P.; Neuron Shield 3, L.L.C.; Neuron Shield Partners 3, L.P.; Neuron Shield 4, L.L.C.; Neuron Shield Partners 4, L.P.; Neuron Shield 7, L.L.C.; Neuron Shield Monitoring Ass... | David Masel v. Adriana Villarreal | 2019-05-15 | 18-40499 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Smith, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KING, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-40499 Document: 00514958937 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Cour... | KING | SMITH | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619978/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,620,381 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Coy JONES, Defendant - Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Coy Marshall Jones, Defendant - Appellant | United States v. Coy Jones | 2019-05-16 | 18-50086; Consolidated With Case 18-50088 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-50086 Document: 00514959153 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | HIGGINBOTHAM | SMITH | HIGGINSON | 1 | {"HIGGINBOTHAM": ", Circuit", "SMITH": ", Circuit", "HIGGINSON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4620381/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,620,384 | Luca CICALESE, Medical Doctor; Cristiana Rastellini, Medical Doctor, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. the UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH, Defendant-Appellee | Luca Cicalese v. Univ of Texas Medical Bran | 2019-05-16 | 18-40408 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Elrod, Willett, Duncan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STUART KYLE DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-40408 Document: 00514959303 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Uni... | ELROD | WILLETT | DUNCAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4620384/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,620,385 | The LAW FUNDER, L.L.C., Plaintiff - Appellee v. Sergio MUNOZ, Jr. ; Law Offices of Sergio Munoz, Jr. P.C., Doing Business as Munoz Law Firm, Defendants - Appellants | Law Funder, L.L.C. v. Sergio Munoz, Jr. | 2019-05-16 | 18-40320 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Per Curiam, Smith, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-40320 Document: 00514959202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n ... | KING | SMITH | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4620385/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,620,593 | Raul TERRAZAS-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. William P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent | Raul Terrazas-Hernandez v. William Barr, U. S. Att | 2019-05-16 | 17-60522 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Barksdale, Southwick, Haynes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-60522 Document: 00514960515 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR T... | BARKSDALE | SOUTHWICK | HAYNES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4620593/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,620,964 | Michael Dean GONZALES, Petitioner - Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent - Appellee | Michael Gonzales v. Lorie Davis, Director | 2019-05-17 | 18-70026 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jones, Per Curiam, Southwick, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-70026 Document: 00514961570 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n ... | JONES | SOUTHWICK | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4620964/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,621,115 | Al COHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; Rachael G. Ray, Defendants-Appellees. | Al Cohen v. Allstate Insurance Company | 2019-05-17 | 18-20330 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Graves, Smith, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-20330 Document: 00514962478 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRC... | GRAVES | SMITH | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621115/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,621,341 | Edward Lee BUSBY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee. | Edward Busby v. Lorie Davis, Director | 2019-05-20 | 15-70008 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Graves, Higginson, Owen", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PRISCILLA OWEN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 15-70008 Document: 00514963180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIR... | GRAVES | HIGGINSON | OWEN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621341/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,621,885 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Rafael TELLO, Defendant - Appellant | United States v. Rafael Tello | 2019-05-21 | 18-40347 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Stewart, Davis, Elrod", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CARL E. STEWART, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-40347 Document: 00514965678 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Unite... | STEWART | DAVIS | ELROD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621885/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,622,336 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Jason Lee RANDALL, Defendant - Appellant | United States v. Jason Randall | 2019-05-22 | 17-11403 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Stewart, Southwick, Engelhardt", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KURT D. ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-11403 Document: 00514967495 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH C... | STEWART | SOUTHWICK | ENGELHARDT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4622336/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,444,002 | Juanita NICHOLS v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY | Nichols v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. | 2019-05-23 | No. 18-60499 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Smith, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415437/", "author_raw": ""}]} | KING | SMITH | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444002/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,444,006 | James E. GOWDY v. MARINE SPILL RESPONSE CORPORATION OSRV New Jersey Responder, its Apparel, Equipment, Engines, Freight, etc., in rem | Gowdy v. Marine Spill Response Corp. | 2019-05-23 | No. 17-41198 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Costa, Higginson, King", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415441/", "author_raw": ""}]} | COSTA | HIGGINSON | KING | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444006/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,623,264 | YPF S.A.; YPF Europe B v. Plaintiffs - Appellees v. APACHE OVERSEAS, INCORPORATED ; Apache International Finance II S.A.R.L., Defendants - Appellants | YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Incorporated | 2019-05-24 | 17-20802 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "James, Haynes, Duncan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-20802 Document: 00514970305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | JAMES | HAYNES | DUNCAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623264/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,623,269 | Nelson Esimar MARTINEZ MANZANARES, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. | Nelson Martinez Manzanares v. William Barr, U. S. | 2019-05-24 | 18-60315 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Clement, Duncan, Oldham", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ANDREW S. OLDHAM, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-60315 Document: 00514970507 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | CLEMENT | DUNCAN | OLDHAM | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623269/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,623,270 | Morgan WEBB; Briana Webb, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. TOWN OF SAINT JOSEPH ; Edward L. Brown, Defendants - Appellees | Ivan Webb v. Town of Saint Joseph | 2019-05-24 | 17-30267 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Southwick, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-30267 Document: 00514970577 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFT... | HIGGINBOTHAM | SOUTHWICK | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623270/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,623,358 | Ralph S. JANVEY, in His Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford International Bank Limited Et Al, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GMAG, L.L.C. ; Magness Securities, L.L.C.; Gary D. Magness ; Mango Five Family Incorporated, in Its Capacity as Trustee for the Gary D. Magness Irrevocable Trust, Defendants-Appellees | Ralph Janvey v. GMAG, L.L.C. | 2019-05-24 | 17-11526 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Stewart, Dennis, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-11526 Document: 00514971687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court o... | STEWART | DENNIS | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623358/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,623,359 | Kevin LAMPKIN; Stephen Miller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; Joe Brown; Frank Gittess; Terry Nelson; Dianne Swiber; Robert Ferrell, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Formerly Known as UBS PaineWebber, Incorporated; UBS Securities, L.L.C., Formerly Known as UBS... | Kevin Lampkin v. UBS Painewebber, Inc., et | 2019-05-24 | 17-20608 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Smith, Graves", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-20608 Document: 00514971195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH ... | HIGGINBOTHAM | SMITH | GRAVES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623359/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,624,091 | The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY; The Travelers Indemnity Company of America; United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company; St. Paul Fire; Marine Insurance Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Ethel MITCHELL, Executrix of the Estate of Phillip Bivens; The Estate of Larry Ruffin ; The Estate of Bobby Ray Dixon; Laturas Smith... | Travelers Indemnity Company v. Forrest Coun | 2019-05-29 | 17-60291 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Southwick, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-60291 Document: 00514974869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ... | HIGGINBOTHAM | SOUTHWICK | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624091/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,625,406 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Virgil Lee BAILEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant | United States v. Virgil Bailey, Jr. | 2019-05-31 | 18-11223 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Davis, Haynes, Graves", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-11223 Document: 00514978757 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n ... | DAVIS | HAYNES | GRAVES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625406/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,625,411 | In the MATTER OF: LIFE PARTNERS HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, Debtor. Life Partners Creditors' Trust ; Alan M. Jacobs, as Trustee for Life Partners Creditors' Trust, Appellants, v. Fred A. Cowley; Gallagher Financial Group; Edward G. Burford Corporation; Faye Bagby; Ella Oliver, Doing Business as Investingmakesmesick.com; We... | Life Partners Creditors' Trust v. Cowley (In Re Life Partners Holdings, Inc.) | 2019-05-31 | 17-11477 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Elrod, Higginson, Engelhardt", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-11477 Document: 00514978723 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR T... | ELROD | HIGGINSON | ENGELHARDT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625411/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,625,412 | Jessica C. MCGLOTHIN, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant | McGlothin v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. | 2019-05-31 | 18-60338 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Barksdale, Southwick, Haynes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-60338 Document: 00514978663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIF... | BARKSDALE | SOUTHWICK | HAYNES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625412/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,615,464 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mason SHEPHERD, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Mason Shepherd | 2019-05-01 | 18-3993 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Nalbandian, Merritt", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888437/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "035concurrenceinpart", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest... | NALBANDIAN | MERRITT | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4615464/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,615,465 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dimitar PETLECHKOV, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Dimitar Petlechkov | 2019-05-01 | 18-5991 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Suhrheinrich, Thapar, Larsen", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "THAPAR, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0082p.06\n\n ... | SUHRHEINRICH | THAPAR | LARSEN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4615465/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,616,650 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Lewis COLEMAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Ronald Coleman, Jr. | 2019-05-03 | 18-1083 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Boggs, Kethledge, Nalbandian", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BOGGS, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0084p.06\n\n ... | BOGGS | KETHLEDGE | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4616650/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,616,651 | James HUFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELECHECK SERVICES, INC.; TeleCheck International, Inc.; First Data Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. | James Huff v. TeleCheck Servs., Inc. | 2019-05-03 | 18-5438 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: BATCHELDER, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File ... | BATCHELDER | SUTTON | WHITE | 1 | {"BATCHELDER": ", Circuit", "SUTTON": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4616651/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,617,670 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wesley A. MUCHOW, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Wesley Muchow | 2019-05-08 | 18-3738 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Cole, Stranch, Readler", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0087p.06\n\n ... | COLE | STRANCH | READLER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617670/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,617,675 | Adrian FOWLER; Kitia Harris, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Jocelyn BENSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in Her Official Capacity, Defendant-Appellant. | Adrian Fowler v. Jocelyn Benson | 2019-05-08 | 17-2504/18-1089 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: BATCHELDER, DONALD, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | BATCHELDER | DONALD | THAPAR | 1 | {"BATCHELDER": ", Circuit", "DONALD": ", Circuit", "THAPAR": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4617675/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,178 | CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF SEBREE, KENTUCKY, Defendant-Appellant. | CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Sebree | 2019-05-14 | 18-5647 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Cole, Batchelder, Donald", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COLE, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0088p.06\n\n ... | COLE | BATCHELDER | DONALD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619178/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,718 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessica R. ACOSTA (18-5207); Luis R. Morales-Montanez (18-5212), Defendants-Appellants. | United States v. Luis Morales-Montanez | 2019-05-15 | 18-5207/5212 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: KETHLEDGE, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File... | KETHLEDGE | WHITE | BUSH | 1 | {"KETHLEDGE": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit", "BUSH": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619718/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,720 | Peter J. MAGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD., Defendant-Appellee. | Peter Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd. | 2019-05-15 | 18-1421 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Guy, Sutton", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888510/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9... | GUY | SUTTON | GUY | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619720/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,721 | M.L. JOHNSON FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David L. BERNHARDT, Secretary of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee, Premier Elkhorn Coal LLC, Intervenor-Appellee. | M.L. Johnson Family Prop. v. David Bernhardt | 2019-05-15 | 18-5520 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "McKeague, Griffin, Nalbandian", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "McKEAGUE", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0091p.06\n\n ... | MCKEAGUE | GRIFFIN | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619721/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,619,723 | BILLY F. HAWK, JR., GST NON-EXEMPT MARITAL TRUST, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Trustees; Estate of Billy F. Hawk, Junior, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co-Executors; Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Exempt Marital Trust, Trustee, Transferee, Nancy Sue Hawk and Regions Bank, Co... | Billy F. Hawk, Jr., GST Non-Exempt Marital Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue | 2019-05-15 | 18-1534 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Guy, Sutton, Nalbandian", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0092p.06\n\n ... | GUY | SUTTON | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4619723/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,620,246 | Shari GUERTIN, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Child, E.B., a Minor; Diogenes Muse-Cleveland, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. State of MICHIGAN, Et Al., Defendants, City of Flint, Michigan, Howard Croft, Darnell Earley, and Gerald Ambrose (17-1699) ; Liane Shekter-Smith, Daniel Wyant, Stephen Busch, Michael Prysby, and... | Shari Guertin v. Michigan | 2019-05-16 | 17-1699/1745 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Judge Readler recused himself from participation in this decision", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)... | MCKEAGUE | GRIFFIN | WHITE | 1 | {"McKEAGUE": ", Circuit", "GRIFFIN": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit"} | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4620246/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,620,992 | AES-APEX EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC.; AES-Apex Employer Solutions, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees (17-2068), Plaintiffs-Appellants (17-2211), v. Dino ROTONDO; Richard Mark; United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees (17-2068 & 17-2211), Akouri Investments, LLC, Intervenor-Appellant... | AES-Apex Employer Servs. v. Dino Rotondo | 2019-05-17 | 17-2068/17-2211 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Suhrheinrich, Thapar, Larsen", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "THAPAR, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0094p.06\n\n ... | SUHRHEINRICH | THAPAR | LARSEN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4620992/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,621,136 | AES-Apex Employer Servs. v. Dino Rotondo | 2019-05-17 | 17-2211 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "THAPAR, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File... | SUHRHEINRICH | THAPAR | LARSEN | 1 | {"SUHRHEINRICH": ", Circuit", "THAPAR": ", Circuit", "LARSEN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621136/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,621,394 | Ricky JACKSON (17-3840); Kwame Ajamu, Fka Ronnie Bridgeman, and Wiley Edward Bridgeman (17-3843), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND; Jerold Englehart; Karen Lamendola, Guardian Ad Litem on Behalf of Frank Stoiker; Estate of Eugene Terpay, Administrator; Estate of James T. Farmer, Administrator; Estate of John... | Kwame Ajamu v. City of Cleveland | 2019-05-20 | 17-3840; 17-3843 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Bush, Rogers", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "No. 1:15-cv-00989-Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File... | BUSH | ROGERS | BUSH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621394/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,621,395 | Daniel B. NORFLEET, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heather RENNER, Defendant, Judy Farris, in Her Official and Individual Capacity, Defendant-Appellant. | Daniel Norfleet v. Heather Renner | 2019-05-20 | 18-6026 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Moore, Murphy, Sutton", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0096p.06\n\n ... | MOORE | MURPHY | SUTTON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621395/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,621,739 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Roy WANDAHSEGA, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Patrick Wandahsega | 2019-05-21 | 18-1219 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Clay, Gilman, Kethledge", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0097p.06\n\n ... | CLAY | GILMAN | KETHLEDGE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621739/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,621,742 | In RE: CAPITAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, Debtor. Carl F. Schier PLC, Appellant, v. Kenneth A. Nathan, Trustee, Appellee. | PLC v. Nathan (In Re Capital Contracting Co.) | 2019-05-21 | 18-2219 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Moore, Sutton, Murphy", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "MURPHY, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0098p.06\n\n ... | MOORE | SUTTON | MURPHY | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4621742/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,622,290 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Aundre DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. | United States v. Aundre Davis | 2019-05-22 | 18-3031/3145 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Clay, Griffin, Stranch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0099p.06\n\n ... | CLAY | GRIFFIN | STRANCH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4622290/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,622,291 | CIC SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; Department of Treasury; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees. | Cic Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. | 2019-05-22 | 18-5019 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Clay, Nalbandian", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888570/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/... | CLAY | NALBANDIAN | CLAY | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4622291/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,623,281 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon Lamont SHANKLIN, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Damon Shanklin | 2019-05-24 | 18-5289 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Moore, Sutton, Murphy", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0101p.06\n\n ... | MOORE | SUTTON | MURPHY | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623281/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,444,003 | Brian D. WILLIAMS v. United States | Williams v. United States | 2019-05-24 | No. 17-3211 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415438/"}]} | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444003/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||||
4,623,789 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mohamed BELAKHDHAR, Defendant-Appellee. | United States v. Mohamed Belakhdhar | 2019-05-28 | 18-1884 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Cook, McKEAGUE, White", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COOK, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0103p.06\n\n ... | COOK | MCKEAGUE | WHITE | 1 | {"McKEAGUE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623789/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,623,790 | In RE: FIFTH THIRD EARLY ACCESS CASH ADVANCE LITIGATION. Lori Laskaris; Daniel Laskaris; Jessie McQuillen; Brian C. Harrison ; Janet Fyock; William R. Klopfenstein; Adam McKinney ; Donald E. Adanich; Lyn A. Adanich; Scott D. Little ; Diana Horn, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appe... | Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank (In Re Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litig.) | 2019-05-28 | 18-3390 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Griffin, Larsen", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888598/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "035concurrenceinpart", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/... | GRIFFIN | LARSEN | GRIFFIN | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623790/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,623,791 | Joseph Lamont JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kevin GENOVESE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. | Joseph Johnson v. Kevin Genovese | 2019-05-28 | 18-5330 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "McKeague, Griffin, Nalbandian", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0104p.06\n\n ... | MCKEAGUE | GRIFFIN | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623791/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,623,792 | Dawn GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN; Brian Bassett ; Keith Birberick; Mark LaBrosse, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. | Dawn Green v. City of Southfield, Mich. | 2019-05-28 | 18-1758/1775 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Sutton, Murphy", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888600/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinion... | SUTTON | MURPHY | SUTTON | 1 | {} | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4623792/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,624,321 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas G. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Thomas Thompson | 2019-05-29 | 17-4264 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Moore, Clay, Donald", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0107p.06\n\n ... | MOORE | CLAY | DONALD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624321/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,624,322 | SECRETARY OF LABOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMBERLINE SOUTH, LLC; Jim Payne, Defendants-Appellants. | Sec'y Labor v. Timberline S., LLC | 2019-05-29 | 18-1763 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Sutton, White, Donald", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0108p.06\n\n ... | SUTTON | WHITE | DONALD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624322/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,624,849 | United States v. Gerald Daneshvar | 2019-05-30 | 18-1101 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: SILER, COOK, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n F... | SILER | COOK | BUSH | 1 | {"SILER": ", Circuit", "COOK": ", Circuit", "BUSH": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624849/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,624,850 | John SCHICKEL, in His Personal and Official Capacities; David Watson, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Ken Moellman, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig C. DILGER, in His Official Capacity as Chair and Member, Kentucky Registry of Election Finance ; Rosemary F. Center; Terry Naydan; Reid Haire; Robert D. Mattingley... | John Schickel v. Craig Dilger | 2019-05-30 | 17-6456/6505 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Merritt, Cook, Larsen", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COOK, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0110p.06\n\n ... | MERRITT | COOK | LARSEN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4624850/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,625,269 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone Dexter CHRISTIAN, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Tyrone Christian | 2019-05-31 | 17-1799 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Rogers, Thapar", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888639/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinion... | ROGERS | THAPAR | ROGERS | 1 | {} | 7 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625269/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,615,754 | Walter Goudy v. Rodney Cummings | 2019-05-01 | 17-3665 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and SYKES and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane Pamela Wood", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐3665 \nW... | WOOD | SYKES | BARRETT | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "SYKES": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4615754/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 5 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.